Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT

WAR CABINET

Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury—Rt. Hon. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, M.P.


Chancellor of the Exchequer—Rt. Hon. Sir JOHN SIMON, G.C.S.I., G.C.V.O., O.B.E., K.C., M.P.


Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—Rt. Hon. Viscount HALIFAX, K.G., G.C.S.L, G.C.I.E., T.D.


Minister for Co-ordination of Defence—Admiral of the Fleet the Rt. Hon.


Lord CHATFIELD, G.C.B., O.M., K.C.M.G., C.V.O.


First Lord of the Admiralty—Rt. Hon. WINSTON CHURCHILL, C.H., M.P.


Secretary of State for War—Rt. Hon. Leslie HORE-BELISHA, M.P.


Secretary of State for Air—Rt. Hon. Sir KINGSLEY WOOD, M.P.


Lord Privy Seal—Rt. Hon. Sir SAMUEL HOARE, Bt. G.C.S.L, G.B.E., C.M.G., M.P.


Minister without Portfolio—Rt. Hon. Lord HANKEY, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.


3rd September, 1939.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

House of Commons (Service in His Majesty's Forces) Bill,

Isle of Man (War Legislation) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Admiralty to dispense, in certain cases, with the requirements of Section five of the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865." [Navy and Marines (Wills) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the prolongation of the service of men of the Royal Marine forces." [Royal Marines Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to impose penalties for trading with the enemy, to make provision as respects the property of enemies and enemy subjects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Trading with the Enemy Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the prolongation of the service of certain men serving in the armed

forces of the Crown." [Military and Air Forces (Prolongation of Service), [Lords.]

NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

ROYAL MARINES BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL. [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

MILITARY AND AIR FORCES (PROLONGATION OF SERVICE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL,

"to make provision for the establishment of a National Register, for the issue of identity cards, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Colville; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL,

"to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to modify or suspend the operation of any of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, and make provision with respect to any of the matters to which the said Acts relate, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Colville, Captain Crookshank and Mr. Lennox-Boyd; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL,

"to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to extend the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to additional classes of persons, and to modify or suspend any of the provisions of the said Act, and to make provision for the payment of allowances in an emergency," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Colville, Captain Crook-shank and Mr. Lennox-Boyd; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) BILL,

"to make provision with respect to the war service of clerks and deputy clerks

of the peace, coroners and persons employed by local and public authorities and certain undertakers, and to prevent persons being disqualified for membership of a local authority by reason of employment in civil defence service or being disqualified for such employment by reason of such membership, "presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by Mr. Colville; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE) BILL,

"to enable war service to be treated as contributory service, approved external service or qualifying service for the purpose of the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1937, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Lindsay; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (WAR SERVICE SUPERANNUATION) BILL,"

to enable war service to be treated as service under any scheme framed in pursuance of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1937," presented by Mr. Colville; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

WAR WITH GERMANY.

PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, any Resolution moved under Standing Order No. 69 in connection with any Bill to which this Order applies may be considered by the House forthwith after it has been reported from a Committee of the Whole House.

This Order applies to the following Bills:

The National Service (Armed Forces) Bill;

The Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Bill;

The Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Bill;

The National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Bill." — [The Prime Minister.]

12.6 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): When I spoke last night to the House I could not but be aware that in some parts of the House there were doubts and some bewilderment as to whether there had been any weakening, hesitation or vacillation on the part of His Majesty's Government. In the circumstances, I make no reproach, for if I had been in the same position as hon. Members not sitting on this Bench and not in possession of all the information which we have, I should very likely have felt the same. The statement which I have to make this morning will show that there were no grounds for doubt. We were in consultation all day yesterday with the French Government and we felt that the intensified action which the Germans were taking against Poland allowed no delay in making our own position clear. Accordingly, we decided to send to our Ambassador in Berlin instructions which he was to hand at nine o'clock this morning to the German Foreign Secretary and which read as follows:
Sir,
In the communication which I had the honour to make to you on 1st September, I informed you, on the instructions of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that unless the German Government were prepared to give His Majesty's Government in the United

Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government had suspended all aggressive action against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would, without hesitation, fulfil their obligations to Poland.
Although this communication was made more than 24 hours ago, no reply has been received, but German attacks upon Poland have been continued and intensified. I have, accordingly, the honour to inform you that unless not later than n a.m., British Summer Time, to-day, September 3rdsatisfactory assurances to the above effect have been given by the German Government and have reached His Majesty's Government in London, a state of war will exist between the two countries as from that hour.
That was the final Note. No such undertaking was received by the time stipulated, and, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. I am in a position to inform the House that, according to arrangements made between the British and French Governments, the French Ambassador in Berlin is at this moment making a similar demarche, accompanied also by a definite time limit. The House has already been made aware of our plans. As I said the other day, we are ready.
This is a sad day for all of us, and to none is it sadder than to me. Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have hoped for, everything that I have believed in during my public life, has crashed into ruins. There is only one thing left for me to do; that is, to devote what strength and powers I have to forwarding the victory of the cause for which we have to sacrifice so much. I cannot tell what part I may be allowed to play myself; I trust I may live to see the day when Hitlerism has been destroyed and a liberated Europe has been re-established.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The atmosphere of this House has changed overnight. Resentment, apprehension, anger, reigned over our proceedings last night, aroused by a fear that delays might end in national dishonour and the sacrifice of the Polish people to German tyranny. Those feelings, I have reason to believe, were shared by large numbers of people


outside, and, from messages which have come to me this morning, I believe that what I said last night met with the approval of our people. This morning we meet in an entirely different atmosphere— one of relief, one of composure, and one of resolution. The intolerable agony of suspense from which all of us have suffered is over; we now know the worst. The hated word "war" has been spoken by Britain, in fulfilment of her pledged word and unbreakable intention to defend Poland and so to defend the liberties of Europe. We have heard more than the word spoken. We have heard the war begin, within the precincts of this House.
I feel that I must, in the name of my hon. Friends—I think I may say in the name of the whole House and of the whole of our people—pay tribute to the great restraint shown by Poland in recent weeks. The last 54 hours have proved that their restraint was not due to cowardice, but to a firm conviction in the righteousness of their cause. For 54 hours Poland has stood alone, at the portals of civilisation, defending us and all free nations, and all that we stand for, and all that we hold dear. She has stood with unexampled bravery, with epic heroism, before her hesitant friends have come to her aid. Poland we greet as a comrade whom we shall not desert. To her we say, "Our hearts are with you, and, with our hearts, all our power, until the angel of peace returns to our midst."
Lastly, in this titanic struggle, unparalleled, I believe, in the history of the world, Nazism must be finally overthrown. The Prime Minister has given us his word that it shall be, and as long as that relentless purpose is pursued with vigour, with foresight, and with determination by the Government, so long will there be a united nation. But should there be confused councils, inefficiency and wavering, then other men must be called to take their places. We share no responsibilities in the tremendous tasks which confront the Government, but we have responsibilities of our own, which we shall not shirk. We have given proof in this Chamber in the past few days that we shall give wholehearted support to the measures necessary to equip this State with the powers that are desired. That support, I pledge this House, will continue. In other directions, according to our opportunities, we shall make our full

contribution to the national cause. May the war be swift and sure, and may the peace which follows stand proudly for ever on the shattered ruins of an evil name.

12.17 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I feel sure that at this grave moment, having listened to the moving speech of the Prime Minister, we should all wish to pay to him a tribute of sympathy. But we are also in a mood of determination and resolution. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition referred to the atmosphere of anger and apprehension which reigned in the House yesterday. To-day, as he says, the atmosphere has so happily changed. Yet underneath those two phases of the mood of Parliament is our determination to see this thing through. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition has paid an eloquent tribute to the restraint with which Poland has behaved during these last difficult weeks, and the courage and bravery that her troops are now showing in the field. Let me associate myself, on behalf of my hon. Friends, in full with the eloquent tribute which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition paid to the Polish people and the Polish Army.
Let me also, if I may, in one word pay my tribute to the people of France, who have for so long been making such great preparations for the struggle with which we are now faced. I do not say that in organisation we need yield anything to them. Great advances have been made in our organisation for war, but in individual preparation, in the contributions which the men and women of the two countries are making to the common cause, I say that France at this moment is ahead of us. If you go to France and meet ten people in the streets you may be sure that eight of them have their places and their parts to play. Our people will do the same as time goes on, but let us have no doubt as to the determination with which the French people are facing this crisis. Let me only say in conclusion: let the world know that the British people are inexorably determined, as the Prime Minister said, to end this Nazi domination for ever, and to build a world order based on justice and freedom.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: In this solemn hour it is a consolation to recall and to dwell upon our repeated efforts for peace. All have


been ill-starred, but all have been faithful and sincere. This is of the highest moral value—and not only moral value, but practical value—at the present time, because the wholehearted concurrence of scores of millions of men and women, whose co-operation is indispensable and whose comradeship and brotherhood are indispensable, is the only foundation upon which the trial and tribulation of modern war can be endured and surmounted. This moral conviction alone affords that ever-fresh resilience which renews the strength and energy of people in long, doubtful and dark days. Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.
We must not underrate the gravity of the task which lies before us or the temerity of the ordeal, to which we shall not be found unequal. We must expect many disappointments and many unpleasant surprises, but we may be sure that the task which we have freely accepted is one not beyond the compass and the strength of the British Empire and the French Republic. The Prime Minister said it was a sad day, and that is indeed true, but at the present time there is another note which may be present, and that is a feeling of thankfulness that, if these great trials were to come upon our Island, there is a generation of Britons here now ready to prove itself not unworthy of the days of yore and not unworthy of those great men, the fathers of our land, who laid the foundations of our laws and shaped the greatness of our country.
This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war for domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty

and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: This day is to me distressing and depressing, and I would not exchange places with the Prime Minister for all the wealth that this country possesses. I have the most tremendous sympathy with him in the position in which he finds himself this morning, after having striven, by every means in his power, to avert this horrible catastrophe to mankind. We have travelled the road of peace with him, maligned and attacked from many quarters. In the paths of war we regret that we cannot accompany him in the ways that mankind is to be led in the near future, in this struggle that we have envisaged from our point of view, because of the contradictions, into which I do not intend to go this morning, as it is not fitting. But we do say that there are two things that are outstanding at this moment. One is that, after all the false propaganda that has gone on throughout this country, when it was stated that if you were to stand up to Hitler it meant peace, standing up to Hitler has ensured war, and believing that, and honestly disagreeing with other Members, who are as honest as we are in their point of view, we have stated all along that as threats would end in war, we could not even indulge in these idle threats.
The other thing in my estimation which has driven mankind along the path of war has been the defection of Russia. On Thursday, when I heard of the mobilisation of Russia on the rear of the Polish army I saw in that action one of three courses, first, in conjunction with


Hitler, to blackmail the Poles into surrender and submission to his aims, or, second, that they intended to maintain neutrality but to hold a part of the Polish army in order to aid Hitler, or, third, that, along with Germany, they intended eventually to assist in the tearing apart of Poland for their own aims and their own use. If there have been any doubts in the mind of Hitler in going to war, the Soviet Government have the criminal responsibility of dissipating those views — [Interruption] —I intend to leave it at that, and to maintain my point of view in this country in spite of the taunts of any person either in this House or outside.
I sympathise this morning with the millions of workers in every country that is going to be involved—to mothers and fathers and sons in Germany, in France, in Austria, in Poland and in Britain and the possessions overseas. My heart goes out to every human being who will be affected by this tragedy, the magnitude of which no man can conceive and the end no man can foretell. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot go along the road of public opinion. Public opinion is undoubtedly behind the Government. It has, by propaganda and by the actions of Hitler himself, been put behind the Government. That public opinion to-day is strong. It is, if I may say so, united, even if it is against my own desires and point of view, but in the tragedy that will follow in six months' time, that opinion will not be so determined, so united or so strong. I am prepared at this stage to say to the Government that theirs is the task and the nation is behind them. But every man and woman who believes that it is his duty or her duty to support the Government, if they are honest and honourable in their intentions —I have no attack to make—every person who is of military age and believes in giving service that others should give I hope they will also give it themselves. For my part I regret that, after 2,000 years of the Gospel of the Prince of Peace, mankind, on Sunday morning, finds itself in this position, that men are on the eve of having to live like beasts, with lice and vermin crawling over them, grubbing for food, blinding and tearing bodies apart and blowing limbs asunder, and I say that in my estimation that is not going to solve any problem. That great human tragedy, that brutality, that

fiendish cruelty that will be enacted on the fields of war is to be deplored and to be condemned, and do not let passions be roused to the extent that they are going to imagine that it will solve anything.
I look for a world of peace wherein Hitlerism can be eliminated, but the people who can pull Hitler down are the people in Germany, and Hitlerism is not confined to the frontiers of Germany. Hitlerism is to be found in every country in the world in the dealings of man with man and of groups of men with groups of men. My concluding words are these. I cannot support this country in this catastrophe. I do not regard it as being idealistic. I do not regard it as being for freedom, justice and human right. I regard it on both sides, the one who says "stop" and the other who says "go," as a hard, soulless, grinding materialist struggle for human gain, for the protection of selfish interests, and in that we will have no heart or part, but we hope that, at the earliest possible moment, the peoples of the world, in Germany and in other countries, will rise and revolt and overthrow the tyrannies which exist, and will establish the rule of peace and comfort upon earth.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I do not intend to attempt to argue the principle for which I stand. This is not the occasion for me to do more than say that I hope very much that those in charge of Government propaganda will do their best to cut down the hate cries that are bound to arise. I want to ask the Prime Minister and the Government when they are considering the question of aerial warfare as they have considered it once, and may consider it again, whether even now it would not be possible to make a proposal to Germany and the world that we would be perfectly willing to abolish aerial warfare in its entirety. I have just come in from an air raid shelter, after a warning. What struck me was the calmness of the people and the feeling that, anyhow, the Government of the country were in the right; but I think, in fact, I know, that there was underlying that opinion the feeling that it is a terrible thing that either young people or old people should have lived to see the day when these foul weapons are being used. Therefore, I


want to ask whether the Government will consider my suggestion.
The cause that I and a handful of friends represent is this morning, apparently, going down to ruin, but I think we ought to take heart of courage from the fact that after 2,000 years of war and strife, at last, even those who enter upon this colossal struggle have to admit that in the end force has not settled, and cannot and will not settle anything. I hope that out of this terrible calamity there will arise a real spirit, a spirit that will compel people to give up reliance on force, and that perhaps this time humanity will learn the lesson and refuse in the future to put its trust in poison gas, in the massacre of little children and universal slaughter. Mr. Gladstone once said, from the other side of the House, that the cause he represented was going down, but he was sure the day would come when it would triumph. There cannot be a man or woman in this assembly to-day who takes part in the Prayers in this House, every day, and there cannot be any men or women who go to church and believe in their faith but must in their hearts believe that sooner or later, if mankind is to live in freedom and peace, there is only one way by which it can do that, and that is by a complete and entire change of mind and outlook, which enables us to see ourselves in other people and God in everybody.

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George: I am one of those who, with hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, have from time to time challenged the handling of foreign affairs by the Government, but this is a different matter. The Government are now confronted with the latest, but I am afraid not the last, of a series of acts of brigandage by a very formidable military Power, which if they are left unchallenged will undermine the whole foundations of civilisation throughout the world. The Government could do no other than what they have done. I am one out of tens of millions in this country who will back any Government that is in power in fighting this struggle through, in however humble a capacity we may be called upon to render service to our country. I have been through this before, and there is only one word

I want to say about that. We had very bad moments, moments when brave men were rather quailing and doubting, but the nation was firm right through, from beginning to end. One thing that struck me then was that it was in moments of disaster, and in some of the worst disasters with which we were confronted in the War, that I found the greatest union among all classes, the greatest disappearance of discontent and disaffection, and of the grabbing for rights and privileges. The nation closed its ranks then. By that means we went through right to the end, and after 4½years, terrible years, we won a victory for right. We will do it again.

12.42 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I realise that this is not the time for words, and I will only detain the House for a very few minutes, but as there has not so far been any right wing supporter of the Government who has uttered any words, I should like to say that I believe I am speaking on behalf of those old Tories in the country that from the bottom of our hearts we welcome the speeches and the spirit of the Oppositions in this House and in the country. We feel that to-day we are all one brotherhood, fighting for our very existence, and we pray that that great unity, which is going to mean so much to the men who will have to bear the terrible strain of this war will persist; because nothing will hearten them more than to know that all the representatives of our great democracy are one in this solemn hour.
Hon. Members know that I have all my life taken a great personal interest in trying to promote unity in the British Empire, and I hope that we shall all be heartened with the knowledge that in the great Dominions overseas to-day hearts are pulsating for liberty and freedom in precisely the same way as in the old land. It was my supreme privilege, in many bloody battles, to stand with Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans in the Great War, and there can be no doubt whatever that the coming of those mighty hosts from overseas turned the scales in favour of victory. It is because we ourselves feel strong in our faith and in the righteousness of our cause to-day that we know that those young nations overseas will assist us and will make an immense contribution of the


flower of their race—and I appreciate very much the fact that the Prime Minister in his broadcast message spoke of that. I should like, as a private individual, to say to the Dominions that we have confidence that in this struggle, however dire and long the fight may be they will be with us right to the end.
I have not in recent months always agreed with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) but I do agree with every word of his speech to-day. There is no division among any of us now, and I believe that all those who share the political views of myself, and every Member on the Labour Benches as well, are prepared to give their hearts and minds, and, if necessary, their lives as well, in the cause of our country and to stand behind the King's Government.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. J. P. Morris: I cannot allow this momentous occasion to pass without expressing, not only for myself, but I am certain for every hon. Member of the House, my admiration for the Prime Minister and for the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition and for all other sections of the House who have displayed an inflexible determination to stop for all time the attempts by the leaders of Germany to dominate the world by force. It is hardly necessary for me to recapitulate the events of the last few weeks, but I would ask the people to be firmly resolved to end for all time the attempts of so-called German culture to bring upon our people and our country all the ravages of war.

The Prime Minister: May I appeal to the House to bring these proceedings to a close? There is an immense amount of work to be done, and I am extremely anxious to get it through.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to make a statement which I consider necessary and desirable in the situation. I said yesterday that I stand for the speedy and effective defeat of the Nazi regime as a sure way of bringing about hope for a lasting peace for the peoples of the world. In taking that stand I want to declare here with the utmost confidence, from experience and from knowledge that I will not come into conflict with the policy of my working class comrades of the Soviet Union. It is not the times to discuss the character of the negotiations which have gone on, but it is necessary that I should make

such a declaration as that— [Hon. Members: "Why?"] —and make it known that the confidence exists, and I am certain that in the events which confront us and in the task which we have undertaken those great forces which have always been for peace will be ready to come to our aid in carrying through that great endeavour.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, any Resolution moved under Standing Order No. 69 in connection with any Bill to which this Order applies may be considered by the House forthwith after it has been reported from a Committee of the whole House. 
This Order applies to the following Bills:
The National Service (Armed Forces) Bill;
The Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Bill;
The Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Bill;
The National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

NATIONAL SERVICE (ARMED FORCES) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Resolved,
 That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for securing and controlling the enlistment of men for service in the armed forces of the Crown; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour or by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or of the making of any Order in Council there under." — (King's recommendation signified.) — [Sir J. Simon.]

Resolution reported, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, and agreed to.

PERSONAL INJURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision as respects certain personal injuries sustained during the


period of the present emergency, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenses incurred by the Minister of Pensions in giving effect to a scheme made under the said Act."(King's recommendation signified.) —[Sir J. Simon.]

Resolution reported, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, and agreed to.

PENSIONS (NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE AND MERCANTILE MARINE) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the transfer to the Minister of Pensions of powers and duties with respect to certain pensions and grants, to amend Section nine of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918,and to make provision for awards in respect of war injuries to and detention of mariners and other seafaring persons and war damage to their effects, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Pensions under the said Act and any sums to be paid in respect of a pension or other payment awarded by virtue of a scheme under the said Act." — [King's recommendation signified.) — [Sir J. Simon.]

Resolution reported, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, and agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to national health insurance as respects the period of the present emergency, and to amend the law relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions as respects that period and as respects provisions against double pensions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase resulting from the operation of the said Act in expenditure which is authorised to be defrayed out of such moneys under or by virtue of the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1938, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936 and 1937, or the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936. — (King's recommendation signified.) —[Sir J. Simon.]

Resolution reported, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE (ARMED FORCES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I. —(proclamations subjecting persons to Act.)

The Chairman: Mr. Alexander.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. May I ask whether my Amendment—in page 1, line 10, after "subject," insert "or a refugee from Austria or Czecho-Slovakia —is not in order, and if it is not in order, may I ask on what grounds?

The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is not in order.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twenty."
In moving this Amendment, I ask the Secretary of State for War to recall that in the discussion which took place on the Bill yesterday, very strong feelings were expressed on all sides with regard to the proposal in the Bill to lower the age for enlistment in military service from 20 to18 years, an age below that which was fixed in the Act dealing with militiamen. I am anxious not to make a lengthy speech, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember the arguments that were made from all sides of the House. We feel very strongly on this issue. We hold that the Government, if it is at all possible, should be able to indicate to us, at a time when we want national unity, that they are prepared to accept this Amendment, in order to avoid any division on this issue.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the course of his reply, he will be good enough to indicate the number of men affected between the ages of 18 and 20?

12.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Naturally, I do not wish to break the spirit of unity in any way,


and before I sit down, I hope I shall have been able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and all those who think as he does. I share the point of view of those who have said that it would be very undesirable to place the primary burden of war on those of this lower age group. That will show the Committee the attitude of mind in which I approach this question. It so happens that in the French Army the lower age is 18, whereas in the Polish Army it is 17. Therefore, I think that no good purpose would be served in carrying an Amendment of this kind, when boys of 17 are defending Poland, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this will be one of the last classes to be called up.
I hope that will satisfy the Committee, particularly in view of this, that we have now all the men we require, except in certain classes of tradesmen for whom an appeal has already been made. We have basically all the men we require, and all the men that we can handle, at the moment. There were 240,000 men registered in June last on whose services we have not yet completely called, and there will be many of the existing age group that is now under an obligation to serve who will have to be trained. Therefore, it will be some time, we anticipate, before we call upon any other age group, and the next age group we shall call upon will not be this one. We shall ascend from the point where we have now started. At least, that is our intention at the moment. We have those of the age of 20-21, and we shall go up the scale very considerably before we contemplate placing this obligation on this lower age group. Let us hope that we shall get through the whole war without having to call upon them at all, but in the last war, the age accepted by the House was 18, and their services were called upon.
I now assure the Committee that if we can, while meeting the necessities of the war, spare this lower class, we shall do so; but we wish to show the country and the world that we have included within our resources the whole man-power, fit for active service, of the nation. I hope the Committee will not press me to accept the Amendment. I think I have met the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which he spoke, and I hope that, when our Allies are actually utilising the services of men of this age for the defence of their liberties,

he will not formally wish to strike out of the Bill the present limit of age, but will accept my assurance that it will be a long time before we shall call upon this class of men.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I did not make a long speech in moving the Amendment, because I was very anxious, if possible, that we should not have a long debate; but I am bound to say that my hon. Friends are very disappointed with the reply of the Secretary of State, which I do not think will meet the widespread feeling that exists not only on this side of the Committee, but on other sides as well. The purport of the Secretary of State's remarks was, first, that this is an age which has been adopted, in other countries, and secondly, that, if the circumstances arise, he must be free to call upon these men; and therefore, he could not accept the Amendment. We hold very strongly that on the question of personnel, from the military point of view at this moment, this age group is not necessary. We held very strongly that because of the kind of contribution that we must make—

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman because I am anxious to avoid controversy. I told him what we intend to do. Would it further reassure the Committee if I told it that, at this very moment, we are taking out of the active Forces preparing for overseas all existing men—and they are very numerous in the Army—who are under 19, and we are not intending to send them to France, although they have enlisted as Regular soldiers. This will show the Committee the attitude with which we approach the matter.

Mr. Alexander: Far from weakening our view of the position, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks strengthen it. I will resume very shortly the points of our argument. The contribution we have to make towards the successful prosecution of this war is by no means confined to the military side. Our spokesmen yesterday pointed out what is the contribution that we have to make in the industrial sphere in order to contribute to the equipment of those with whom we march in the coming fight for our objectives. At this juncture, when the Secretary of State says he is unable really to handle effectively and immediately any larger classes of


men than those available to him in existing circumstances, we cannot understand why the Government will not meet us more than they have offered to meet us this morning. A large number of my hon. Friends regard is as a sine qua non that the spirit of the Amendment as it stands shall be adopted. For my part, I think the very least compromise that we can accept is an undertaking of a double character, first, that if the age remains as it is in the Bill, this will be the last class—I think the Secretary of State said it would be one of the last—to be called up and, secondly, that in no circumstances will men under 20 be sent out of this country to fight. That is the compromise we offer, and I do not think, from the consultations which I have made, that we could take anything less. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will be prepared to give an undertaking on those two points. Otherwise I think we must adhere to the Amendment on the Paper.

1.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will consider this matter very carefully before he accepts this Amendment. In the first place, these young men themselves are anxious to be trained and to take their part. Personally I would not object to the exclusion of men under the age of 20, if it did not mean "stepping up" the age generally. If it comes to a question of taking either men under 20, or men over 40, I say without hesitation that it is better for everybody in this country and for the Army, that the men under 20 should be taken in preference to the men over 40. Everybody admits that the man or boy of 18 or 19 has not the same stamina and staying power as the man of 23 or 24 or 25. On the other hand, he has far more stamina than the man over 40, and, apart from the family responsibilities which the older men have to bear, from the point of view of physique alone, the younger man will make an infinitely better soldier than the older one. When a man under 20 has to undertake arduous physical exercise to which he is unaccustomed, he very quickly becomes fit and is able to endure fatigue without undue suffering. On the other hand, when a man over 40 is called upon to endure unaccustomed and arduous labour he does not get fit—he merely gets tired and goes

on getting tired. It is, I admit, quite a different thing if he has been accustomed to severe exercise all his life, but if a man who has been accustomed to a sedentary occupation is asked to march long distances carrying a heavy pack he simply finds that he cannot do it, and in a very short time it means his physical and, possibly, his mental breakdown.
In the middle of the last War it was my duty to take command of a battalion which had been raised some time after the War started and which consisted, to a large extent, of rather young men and rather elderly men. I had an unrivalled opportunity of seeing which class stood up best to the hardships and sufferings of war. I say, unhesitatingly, that the young men stood up to it far better than the more elderly men. In those days, men were sent out to war at the age of 19, and a large number of very gallant youngsters went out at the age of 18 and even younger. One could not help noticing that after a particularly strenuous march or after four or five particularly trying days in the line, the younger men completely recovered after a couple of days' rest. They showed amazing resiliency and recuperative power. On the other hand, the elderly men, even after a period of rest, were still in a state of mental and physical fatigue which in the long run—the not very long run— in many cases, resulted in their complete physical and mental breakdown.
If we are to win this war we want to get the men into the Army who are most suited to stand the terrible strain to which they will be subjected. It is no use having men who are likely to go sick at an early stage in the proceedings. The man who goes sick is not only a loss to the Army himself. It is not only a question of the loss of a rifle in the firing line. It means the loss of the services of the men who have to evacuate him to the base and of the men who have to look after him when he goes down there. If it is possible—and the Secretary of State has said that it is at present possible—to do without these young men, then, well and good, so much the better. But I think it would be a mistake to go without these younger men if it meant "stepping up" the age right through all the classes of men who are likely to be called up. I honestly believe that the more elderly men through their lack of fitness, suffer


more in war than the younger men who are more resilient. War involves enough suffering without imposing its strain on people who are less able to bear it than others.

1.12 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I wish to call the Committee's attention to the fact that the compromise offered by my right hon. Friend is that men under 20 should not be sent oversea. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, referred to his experience as a commanding officer. Let me speak of my experience, commanding a field ambulance and in the line generally. I gained a very extensive knowledge of the different ways in which men reacted to the strain during the whole period of the War, most of which I spent in France, Egypt or Palestine. I formed the definite opinion that men under 20 stood up very badly indeed to the strain of active service. I am not sentimentalising about this. I look upon it as a question of conserving the national resources and one of the most important parts of our national resources is the class of men under 20. If such a young man is taken into the Army and trained and used in this country, where many men will be required, he will be doing valuable national service. If, however, these men are sent abroad and exposed to hardships which are likely to be, if anything, greater than those of the last War a large number of them will break down.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any definite statistics or has made any statistical inquiry as to the proportion of sickness and invalidity and general breakdown among people under 20 who were on active service oversea during the last War. I can speak only of my own experience but it was, as I say, an experience almost entirely of conditions at the Front, and, regarding this solely as a matter of conserving men for use under active service conditions, I came definitely to the conclusion that the man under 20 was too soft in his bones, in his cartilages and in his general structure to stand up to the severe strain which was imposed by war at that time. I had no idea when I came to the House to-day that this matter would be raised in this form, but I have held this opinion for many years and I think I ought to express it as a view which is supported not only by my own experience but by the experience of a great many other medical

officers. If the Secretary of State accepted this compromise offer of my right hon. Friend and men under 20 were not sent oversea, the men would be available in this country for doing duty which would otherwise have to be done by older men, and they would not be subject to the strain which would prevent them being used properly in later years. We have to plan in this way for the use of our reserves of power, especially manpower, over a prolonged period. It is essential that we should conserve our man-power by guarding those under 20 from the greater hardships to which they will be subjected if they are sent oversea.

1.17 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: There are one or two very short observations that I want to make. First I will answer the specific and clear and definite point made by the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to march in step with our Allies. The Poles, we are told, adopt the age of 17 and the French the age of 18. The answer to that is simply that different races and different people mature at different ages. It is quite obvious to any student that the ordinary Frenchman matures at an earlier age than the ordinary Englishman. I do not know the Poles as well as the French, but I imagine that they are very much the same. The test obviously comes in their physical utility in warfare. That brings me to the second of the short points that I want to make. As has been said, the real question is what physical use can you most advantageously make of these men? I always understood that the general, physical medical experience in the last War was that you did not want to put men to the strain of active service when they were under 20 if you could avoid it. The Secretary of State for War has demonstrated that conclusively by informing us that at this vital moment, when he obviously wants to send to France his very best troops, he has sorted them by taking out of the ranks, say, John Smith and John Jones, because they are under 20 years of age.

1.19 p.m.

Sir Thomas Rosbotham: I would make an appeal to the Secretary of State to accept the suggestion of the Opposition that men under 20 should be kept at home or in the Empire for defence pur-


poses. The Opposition have behaved nobly throughout these dark days, and it is not asking too much that this concession should be made. I am told on the best authority that in Germany all the girls and boys are in uniform. That is dictatorship. Let us show to the world a spirit of democracy by accepting the suggestion of the Opposition.

1.20 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to our appeal and give it further consideration. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is not desired that we should take guidance from other countries. It is quite true that men mature earlier in other countries, but I think that our stamina as a race is greater than that of France or Poland as men get older. I had some experience in the last War. I give all credit to the young men for wanting to do all that they could, and for doing it, but while a young man is immature it is very hard to get him to realise the full responsibility of having to carry on a war, and I sometimes felt that he was not able when under 20 years of age to carry on the arduous task of fighting. It is quite true that such young men matured more quickly. The question, however, is to get the right spirit in the men who may have to carry on for a long period, and I think that the older ages are far better in the long run. We shall get a lot of young men joining the Forces voluntarily at the age of 18. There will be others whom firms do not want to go until the age of 20. It would be a sad state for us now to compel these people to take on this work before they are 20.
I am anxious that we should prosecute this war with a feeling that we carry the whole of the people behind us, and I think that we should not be doing the best thing in the interests of the country if we forced young men in the way that has been suggested. We should have the mothers of the nation feeling very bitter against us. We are anxious to see a successful termination of the war. We trust that the Secretary of State will pay attention to our plea by waiving the point he has made and saying "I accept the offer that0020is made." I expected to go to a division against the proposal of the Government, but the Secretary of State has now made an offer and I would

urge him now to accept our suggestion. We can reconsider the position at a later date if that be necessary.

1.22 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I feel that it is a very bad policy to send boys who are under 20 to the front, but I do not see exactly how the Secretary of State could accept the Amendment There may come a time when these boys will have to go. To my mind it is quite enough that the Secretary of State assures us that they will be the last to go, except in an emergency. I happen to be a mother who, fortunately or unfortunately, has five sons all of a fighting age, from 21 to40, and all ready to go. I think the Amendment asks too much. From past experience the Government do not want these boys to go to the front, and I am sure the Secretary of State does not want to send them, but there might be an emergency when they would have to go and there would not then be time to come to the House in order to pass the proposal. I hope the House will trust the Government implicitly. We are far more advanced than we were in the last War. We have all the knowledge and experience of that war to help us, and assuredly the Government are considering the matter from every point of view.
One of the most remarkable things in the present crisis is the attitude of the mothers of England. It was that same spirit which inspired me in the last War. Heaven knows, the mothers would five times, 20 times rather lay down their lives than have a war. I hope the Opposition will not press the Amendment to a division, for it would look bad in the country and would really misrepresent what we all want. We want the Government to have complete power, but we do not want, unless it is absolutely necessary, to send boys of 20 into the fighting line, not because they are afraid to go but because it would be a bad thing from the country's point of view. I beg the Minister to give an assurance that these boys will not go unless it is a necessity.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The issue that we are discussing lies within a fairly narrow compass. The Minister has given us an assurance that except in the last resort these boys will not be called up and that they are not to be used in the early stages. Hon. Members who have put


forward the Amendment do not suggest that the service of these boys may not be required, but they say that if they are required, we should have further legislation. Therefore, it does not seem that there is very much difference between the two sides. But I think we have to consider what the effect might be elsewhere if this Amendment were passed. I agree with almost every argument that I have heard from above the Gangway here, but I would ask those hon. Members to consider this aspect. It seems to me that the one thing that might cause disunity between ourselves and our Allies at the present time is any feeling that we were entering into this war on the principle of limited liability, that we were leaving the Poles and the French to carry the main burden and were not prepared to make equivalent sacrifices to those which are being made by our Allies. If we were to begin in that way, and if the first act of this House after the declaration of war was to pass an Amendment of this kind, limiting our liability, I believe that it might have that effect. Therefore, while in ordinary times I should agree with every argument that has been used in support of the Amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed and certainly that it will not be carried to-day.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Price: I want to emphasise one point and to confirm what my hon. Friends on this side have said. I conceive that it may be possible that pressure may be put upon the Government by our Allies to throw all our forces into the fight at once. I say that it is very important for us to conserve our strength, and I can conceive it as quite possible that the idea may be pressed upon our Government that we can now, in the early weeks and months of the war, force an issue by a tremendous effort of man-power, as was attempted at various stages during the last War. It is our historical role, and we shall have to play it once more, as we have played it in the past, to be the conserver of energy for our Allies on the Continent. I do not deny that there is a strong case for those who argue that it does not look fair to our Allies. On the other hand, I must put the other side. Although I believe the Government will try to conserve our energies, there may come a time when pressure will be put upon them

and when, even against their better judgment, they may feel that they will have to give way. Therefore, I think that now is the time to make a decision on this matter. We must not forget that the conservation of all our resources is just as important as throwing them into the holocaust in the early stages, and I do hope the Government will listen to this appeal.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I hope that if the Government do not accept the Amendment, my own party will press it to a Division. After all, this country, this Government, and this Parliament stand by liberty, and I disagree with the suggestion that we must always see what our Allies are doing and then do likewise. If they lower the age to 14, are we to follow them? If they enlist women, are we to do the same? The argument has only to be advanced for us to realise that it does not hold water. Therefore, I hope that on that point alone we shall recognise that we have not always to look to our Allies to see what they are doing before we do what we think right. I believe that we have our own point of view and that we should state it, and if in this struggle we are going to try and conserve a higher standard of living than other countries, here is one small, minor way in which we can do it. Further, I suggest that there is a large number of people in this country who are convinced, however much they may detest conscription, that on the whole conscription is a fairer and more logical method of securing recruits for the Army than the method of voluntarism. We have memories of the voluntary methods of the last War and of the sometimes mean and contemptible methods adopted on that occasion. As between the two methods, I think conscription is infinitely better and cleaner, but that applies to those who are virtually citizens of this country. When the previous National Service Act was brought in, it applied only to those of 20 years and upwards and not to those of 18. There were reasons for that, and one reason was that we recognised that those under 20 stood in a somewhat different category precisely because they were still young.
When the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) was speaking—she has now disappeared,


as she so frequently does after she has spoken—she said she knew something of the mothers of the country. I was reminded that before I came here to-day I saw 600 mothers in my constituency off to another part of the country, and I am certain, knowing them as I do, that if I went to them and said, "Women of Leyton, most of you believe that we must prosecute this war, and your men folk, your sons, in some cases your fathers, certainly your husbands, will go, but do you want those under 20 taken?" I am positive that 90 per cent. of them would say, "For God's sake, leave us our sons while they are still young. When they are 20, they may have to go and be poured into the vortex, and we accept that in a grim spirit of resignation, but leave us our sons while they are still young." On that ground, I plead with the Secretary of State for War to recognise that, whatever might be the validity of arguments used by other speakers, there is this extra argument, that the youth of to-day in this country, from the time when they leave school till they are 20, are still young. Let them have their youth before they die. On that ground we should recognise that 20 years is quite an early enough age for them to begin their training. If they want to volunteer before then, they can, and no one will say them nay, but let them have three or four years during which they may still live a civilian life if they wish to do so. When they get to the age of 20, they may be conscripted in order to serve this nation's need and purpose, as Parliament has determined. I plead most earnestly, in order to conserve the experience of youth, that we should recognise some distinction between citizenship and the preparation for citizenship, and I hope we shall not merely copy our Allies, but follow our own standard, and that the Government will accept the Amendment.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I remember that in October. 1914. I was adjutant of a Territorial battalion which was ordered to the Far East, and we were required to leave behind all our men who were under 20 years of age. That completely disorganised the battalion—an existing battalion. We had a number of lads of 18 and 19 who were non-commissioned officers, many of them fully trained. It so

happened that we had months in the East in which we could re-train men before going on active service in Mesopotamia, but I think the Committee should realise, as regards existing units, that there is that question. I have not the least doubt in my own mind that it is highly undesirable to send men under 20 abroad, and that that ought to be, as it was in the last War, the policy of the Government. Wherever possible they should leave behind those under 20, and I should be in favour of a declaration that that would be their intention on this occasion, but when you come to an Amendment and to saying that there shall be no calling-up of boys under 20, or that in no circumstances should any of them be liable to go abroad, I think you are getting on dangerous ground. I have no doubt, in regard to no calling-up under 20 that you would get great difficulty in families between one brother who volunteers and another brother on whom pressure is put not to volunteer until he is called up. In such cases you will get difficulty as between conscription and voluntary service in many families and businesses. Therefore, I should strongly object to any acceptance of the Amendment in the first instance. On the other hand, those who volunteer and those whom it was thought necessary ultimately to call up should be turned into good trained soldiers at home for defensive purposes at home and in the Empire. In that way we should not only conserve the best of our man power, but make the best use of it.

1.36 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to make an appeal in order that we may get some measure of agreement on this question. I served at a very early age during the last War, and I do not agree with the hon. Member who stated that the young men of 18 and 19 stood up under heavy bombardment as well as the men of22, 25 and 26 Almost any ex-soldier will agree that it was often the steadiness of the older men who kept the young men cheerful and in their positions. I want to say that to the Minister of War in order that he may not run away with the idea that a young man of 18 and 19, full of enthusiasm and feeling gay in his uniform, can withstand the circumstances of war to the same extent as a man who is a little older, who has had some experience and is much steadier in the light


of it. The circumstances of the time will determine how soon certain classes have to be called up, and German aggression and methods may determine the time and kind of measures to be taken in order to achieve those things we have set out to achieve.
We have embarked on the defence of the democracies of the world. We on this side, as on the other, have agreed that every step must be taken. All that we are concerned about is that the country's youth shall not be sacrificed needlessly or promiscuously and that every step will be taken to conserve that youth. While I was in France during the last War, under age, my younger brother was in the Training Reserve Battalion and was guarding the Forth Bridge. I still have some of his correspondence, and judging from it he considered that he was doing as important a job as I was doing oversea. The preliminary training of these young men in home defence fits them very well for the heavier and more arduous and dangerous work abroad. I would ask the Secretary of State at least to give us two assurances. The first is that it is the intention to give these young classes adequate training in home defence; and, second, that in the event of the circumstances of the time determining that he must take this step, he will report to the House and give Members a full knowledge of the facts. We remember that the March, 1918, retreat necessitated calling on not only the young man, but unfit and wounded men and everything we had.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I appreciate the terms of the last speech as practical common sense. I am reluctant to let any division appear where no division exists. The discussion is really academic. Such things as we heard from the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), based upon his medical experience, as to whether the under 20's or over 20's had the greater physical stamina, may be of abstract interest, but I have already assured the House not only that we do not intend as an initial policy to send these young men under 20 to France, but that we do not intend to call them up. Therefore, while the hon. Member's speech may be of interest as to which class can endure longest, it is not really the practical issue. We do not want, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for

Dundee (Mr. Foot) said in his most powerful speech, to make our first act after the declaration of war a public limitation upon our liabilities.

Mr. Alexander: May I point out that as late as 1916, two years after the other War started, there was a specific proviso in the Military Service Act that men under certain ages would not be sent abroad?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am saying something better. I am saying that not only are we not going to send them abroad, but that we do not intend to call them up until very late. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has said with what pride young men, whose lives are precious to the nation, guard vulnerable points in this country and perform training which at a later stage will be useful to them. No doubt young men of 18 and 19 will clamour to join the services, but we are not proposing to call them up. We are proceeding entirely by age groups. In the last War hundreds of thousands of young men were allowed to volunteer and they went abroad, but they cannot go this time. We are not allowing them to do it. They are only tube called up when their class is proclaimed. I heartily reciprocate the spirit of the suggestions that were made to me by the hon. Member for Maryhill, who said that the country wanted to know that our youth would not be sacrificed needlessly. It is the last intention we have in the world to sacrifice them needlessly. The hon. Member asked whether the younger classes, if they were called up, would be given adequate training before they were sent abroad. Certainly that will be the case. The mere fact that we had to call upon the younger classes under 20 would not mean that they would be plunged into conflict overseas. They would be adequately trained.
We start the war in a much better position this time. We have on our hands as many men as we can handle at the moment. When the time comes to call up a further class it will not be the 18 or 19 classes. We have the 20's and the 21's, and we shall call the 21's and 22's and so go up the scale. It will be only in the event of enormous pressure when we are defending our liberties that we shall have perhaps to take, as all other countries have had to take, our whole


man-power. We may have to extend the age beyond 41, but pray God that that will not be the case. I can completely satisfy the hon. Member who asked me those questions. I have given him quite candid answers, showing that there is no difference between us except an academic difference, and that I do not want at this stage, as the hon. Member suggests, to start the war by sending these young men to France, or on the other hand to say that, if the need comes, we shall not do whatever is required of us, however great the sacrifice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I would not say this if the Government did not mean it. I am the first to be guided by the sentiment of this House, which I completely appreciate.

Mr. Alexander: I have on the Paper an Amendment which expresses the view of a large number of my party, but I offered a compromise because I did not want to have a Division, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give an assurance that men under 20 would not be sent out of this country. I ask him now to say whether he will give that assurance, or say that they will not be sent out of the country unless he comes back to the House and asks for permission to do so.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In one respect I went further than the right hon. Gentleman asked me. We are dealing with this Bill and not with Regular soldiers. We not only do not intend to send out of the country those under 20, but we do not intend to call them up until very late in the day, so that goes further than what the right hon. Gentleman said. In any event we could not send them out of the country without training them, so even if they were called up it would be a considerable time before they could get out of the country, and they might be useful in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) by guarding vulnerable points and they would be trained. So I have gone further than he asked. He asks me to say that I will not call them up without coming back to the House.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Not send them out of the country.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not wish to give that assurance, for a reason which I do

not wish to develop. One does not know what the course of this war is going to be, or whether this Parliament will be capable of being held in this building at all, but I have told the right hon. Gentleman what our intention is, and I do not want to commit any Government which may be in office to a pledge to discuss this matter in Parliament in circumstances which I cannot foresee. I say it is not our intention to do that thing, and that I would consult with hon. Members if I was holding my office then. It is not our policy, and the question cannot arise, at any rate for a year or two. One does not know what the circumstances will be then. I do hope, as I have gone even further in one respect than the right hon. Gentleman asked me, that hon. Members opposite will be satisfied.

1.49 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: None of us wants a Division if it can be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that these men will not be called up until other classes have been dealt with. That assurance is satisfactory so far as it goes, but what we are anxious to secure, as my right hon. Friend indicated, is that men under 20 should not be sent abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has demurred to that suggestion, and there may be, I confess, sound reasons for rejecting such a proposal. For example, the circumstances may change. We may be in a situation in which even the right hon. Gentleman may be compelled to reverse his assurance and call up men of 18. He may be compelled to send them out of the country, because of those circumstances which may arise; but can we have this assurance, that in the event of its being necessary to call up men between 18 and 20, and in the event of its being necessary to send any of those classes abroad, he will, so far as the latter consideration is concerned, come to the House, explain the circumstances and ask theHouse— [Hon. Members: "If possible."] Obviously everything depends on that assumption— if it is possible. That, I think, would go a long way to satisfy my hon. Friends. We are not asking very much. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed that he will not call up these classes, and I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that although he gives that assurance he might not be able to stand by that assurance six months from now. Circumstances which might


arise might render it necessary to reverse that view. We accept that. But if it is necessary, having called up those classes, then to send them out of the country, will he come to us and say, "Here are the new circumstances and in those circumstances I ask the consent of the House to send them out of the country"? If he will give that assurance I think we may be satisfied.

1.51 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I have a recollection of similar problems during the last Great War. There was then a very strong feeling, just as there is now—my right hon. Friend opposite will remember it—about lads being sent oversea, and undertakings were given, and given with equal sincerity, that they would not be sent; but we all remember the terrible tragedy of March, 1918, when our forces were in retreat and of course, that pledge was more or less violated, was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I do think that at a time like this we must have a good deal of confidence in the Government. We have to give them discretion. If they abuse that discretion, in due course they will be called to account. Having heard the views expressed from this side of the Committee and by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), and knowing the feeling of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking to interpret it, and I think that in these circumstances we should accept his assurance.

Mr. Leslie: Surely the lesson of the last War ought to have convinced the Government not to include boys of 18 under this conscription—

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an answer?

1.53 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I very much hope that the House will do what the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggests. I do not want to use words which may be misinterpreted at any later stage. We could not send these men abroad without calling them up and training them, in any event, and therefore there will be plenty of time, if we should violate our present intentions, for this House to express its view on the matter. Furthermore, the class cannot be called up at all without a Proclamation, and it is always open to

hon. Members opposite to raise any matter in this House and if they feel strongly enough upon it, to move a Vote of Censure on the Government. I do not see why I should go further. There is no difference between us on the merits, none whatever.

Mr. Alexander: You are forcing us to a Division.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think that is fair of the right hon. Gentleman. I have done my best and I cannot say any more.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. Mander: It seems to me that we really are disputing on nothing at all—I do not say as between one side and another. If the right hon. Gentleman has been asked to come to the House of Commons—if it is possible—if he decides that it is necessary to send those young men overseas, surely he can say, and I think he has perhaps intended to say, that he will do so. I cannot see the slightest constitutional difficulty in saying, "If possible I will come to the House." If he will do that it seems to me that that might meet the position.

1.55 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I see no reason why we should be forced into the Division Lobby, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the Secretary of State for War should be so adamant on this subject. I hope that even now the Secretary of State will re-consider the need for meeting the reasonable request that has been made from this side. For the life of me I cannot understand why he cannot make that promise. It is a reasonable promise to ask and it is not committing him unduly. It is simply asking that before doing these things he shall again come to the House, and there were the saving words added by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), "if possible." If we do not exist it will not be possible, but we are hoping at least that, if this Parliament does not exist, some other will, and some of us are confident that this Parliament will still be here In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to suggest that, if possible, he will come to the House before taking steps to send these lads overseas. I ask that we may have a more straightforward promise from him and let the Committee feel a spirit of confidence in him and the Government at this tragic hour.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I think the Secretary of State is showing a rather inaccurate sense of proportion. The final suggestion made to him is one that he can so easily accept and avoid a division. He says that he does not intend to call up these young men, and when they are called up they will take time to train. All we suggest is that if he sends them out of the country before 20 he shall, if possible, come to the House and explain the circumstances and then allow us in the ordinary way to express our opinion.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I sincerely hope that at this early stage we shall not be going into the Lobby on a point of obstinacy. What are we fighting about—whether a body like this House or a group of people meeting in secret shall settle the affairs of the world. That, as I understand it, is what the war is about. My hon. Friends have endeavoured to make this pledge as elastic as possible if the position of the House is to be preserved. There are many issues that are involved in the question. Those of us, like some hon. Members on those benches and hon. Friends of mine like the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and others, who were in the last war, have only too painful memories of the way in which on occasion, if we are to judge by the books of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), life was squandered in the last War. We believe that, with those lessons in front of them, this or any other Government which takes its place will wish that in making their omelettes they break no unnecessary eggs. We have agreed that the right hon. Gentleman may have to call up these classes. The last thing we desire is that any man should go abroad untrained, but if he had to send them abroad, having trained them and if the House is meeting, surely it is not very much to ask that he should come to us and explain the circumstances.

1.59 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)and the hon. Member who has just sat down have made it quite easy for me. I understand that what hon. Members require is an assurance

from me that, if possible, before sending any man called up under the Bill out of the country when under the age of 20 I should, if still in my present position, make a statement to the House, or my successor would, explaining the circumstances which have rendered that course necessary. That, I understand, is the sense of the request. I hope there has been no ill will in the discussion, and I do not think there is any real difference between us, and therefore I can give an affirmative answer to the question.

Mr. Alexander: I hope that on any further Amendment we may get a quicker acceptance when we offer a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The original request was different or there would not have been a difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The Secretary of State, in an interjection, made a statement with regard to the policy to be adopted in regard to Territorials who have already volunteered. There are a great many men of 18 and 19 in the Territorials and other volunteer forces. I think it would be of use if he would expand that interjection and let us know what his policy is with regard to men under 20 in those forces, which do not come under the Bill.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am afraid they do not come under the Bill at all and therefore it is not really relevant I said earlier that we were withdrawing from any units to go oversea all men under 19, which was the war practice. That, of course, will apply to the Territorial Army. These are men already in the force and trained but, despite that, we do not intend to send them oversea under 19. I very much hope that, as far as the Territorial Army is concerned, we may be able to carry that further, but that is the policy.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I should like to ask for your guidance and advice, Sir, and I hope it will be as generous as possible remembering that we are working under difficulties. My right hon. Friend the


Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) had an Amendment which has been ruled out of order. In the new situation in which we find ourselves I hope we are going to be given an opportunity on some Clause of the Bill to raise that issue. This Clause appears to provide the best opportunity of raising it. May we be allowed the opportunity?

2.5 p.m.

The Chairman: I hasten to respond in the same spirit and to assure the whole Committee that I want to do all I can to enable the Committee to get on with the business. I should be quite ready, with the general assent of the Committee, to take any course within the rules of Order with reasonable elasticity in order to obtain the end we all desire, but this particular point is so definitely outside the scope of the Bill that I see no possibility of allowing a discussion upon it at any stage.

Mr. E. Smith: May I make a very few more observations, Sir Dennis, that may assist you in coming to a decision? If you look at Clause 1 of the Bill, the object of which is to make provision for securing and controlling the enlistment of men for service in the Armed Forces, you will see that it relates to every man within Great Britain. Owing to what has arisen in the world in the last few years, a large number of men have come to this country desiring to serve this country and that for which it stands, but the Bill does not enable them to do so. They want to rally to the Forces of good will as soon as possible. We are working under a big handicap, and I suggest that we ought to have a reasonable opportunity, within limits to be decided by you, to raise "this point on behalf of thousands of men in this country and other parts of the world, who want to support what Britain stands for.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has to some extent been discussing that very point which I have ruled out of order. I have as much sympathy with him as any person. So far as I am concerned I would be only too glad to give him an opportunity of discussing that matter as soon as possible, but it is clear that I should be going outside my duty if I allowed discussion to take place on that matter on this Bill.

2.8 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. I have not the slightest intention of voting for the Clause unless I can get some statement from the Government as to the assistance they hope to get from people who are not British subjects. We are voting money—

The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a speech, but I did not call him for that purpose.

Colonel Wedgwood: We are now voting a Clause which compels an indefinite number of British subjects to serve the country in the Army. Before I vote for insisting upon all these various categories of British subjects fighting compulsorily in the Army I want to know whether the Government will accept the voluntary service—

The Chairman: Let us be clear about this matter in one way or another. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to a point of Order, and I have given my decision on that point of Order. Now he is apparently endeavouring to make a speech on the Clause on lines which I have ruled to be out of order. I cannot stop his voting as he chooses, but I must keep the Debate within its proper limits.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not out of order on a point of Order. I am not arguing that I should be allowed to move my Amendment, which is for the compulsory service of these people. I want to —

The Chairman: I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have ruled that discussion on that subject is out of order on this Clause..

Colonel Wedgwood: On that point of Order; are we in order in discussing on this Clause the need there is for the Clause at all? Why is it necessary for the Government to demand these services from British subjects? I put it to you, Sir Dennis, that it is necessary for the Government to prove their point that they need these men. If there are people willing to come forward voluntarily—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman rose to a definite point of Order. The answer to it is that what he said just now as to the principle of the Clause is certainly within order to be discussed, as he knows perfectly well. If he puts the


question in that way, I must remind the Committee that if a discussion upon that principle goes beyond the limits which I have already ruled, I shall have to stop it.

Colonel Wedgwood: I intend to keep entirely within the Rules of Order. I want to know, before we decide to give the Government this power, whether they contemplate using the voluntary sources that there are in and also outside this country among the refugees. In the last War directly the Government got power to conscript Englishmen and Scotsmen the people in the War Office immediately said: "Now we have all the real, true Britons we need, and we can avoid calling upon the services of black men, half castes, Maltese and Cypriots." I want to know whether that silly business is going on in the War Office again. Now that they have these powers of conscripting Englishmen will they still think that only Englishmen are fit to be called up? Will they not accept the voluntary offers of British subjects or of people who are refugees in this country? Are the Government contemplating accepting these services, and will they do all they can to persuade the generals at the War Office to accept such offers and not to restrict their attentions to Englishmen?

The Chairman: I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is going outside the Clause.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not outside the Clause. It is very much in order that before we pass this very important Clause, which conscripts Englishmen for National Service in the Army, we should know whether the Government are going to avail themselves—

The Chairman: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him again. Let him give me a chance of saying what I wanted to say to him just now, and that is that the principle of the Clause has been decided on Second Reading. He knows very well that a Second Reading Debate is not allowed upon a principle which has been carried on Second Reading.

Colonel Wedgwood: But not this question of what categories of people—

The Chairman: Yes. The only way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentle-

man can raise that question is by doing something which I have ruled is out of order.

Colonel Wedgwood: I deny your Ruling, Sir Dennis. [Hon. Members: "Order."] It is perfectly right to say so.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed some liberty to develop his argument, and I trust that I may be permitted very shortly to put the same point, which is whether the Secretary of State in framing the Clause had in mind the possibility of enlisting the services voluntarily of a large number of aliens—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman heard my Ruling, which I did my very best to explain. He cannot raise that matter.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said so much that I thought I might say just that much. There is one other point which was raised yesterday and answered, on which I think more information is required, because there is a great deal of public interest in it. The point is whether there will be any difference between the calling up of married men and single men. It has been definitely said that the Secretary of State is to adopt the usual practice and make no difference at all, but he will find that there will be great controversy and feeling in the country upon the subject. What the Government intend to do ought to be made quite clear. I quite agree that it will not be possible to lay down a hard and fast rule about all single men being called up before all married men. It is a question of dependants and obligations. Those are the considerations that ought to guide the Government. I am sure the country will desire that some general indication should be given, in order that people may be satisfied and that a lot of quite unnecessary suspicion may be avoided.

2.16 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: Earlier today the Leader of the Liberal party made a remarkable speech, in which he paid a very special tribute to the French people. In the course of that speech he said that out of every ten people in France eight knew exactly what they were required to


do in war. He very properly said that in this country we had not attained that degree of service. I hope that nothing that has been said in the course of this Debate will allow the impression to grow, either in France or in Poland, that this country is prepared to make a lesser sacrifice than they.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. Price: I will try to avoid any issue which is controversial and not in order. 1 feel I must say one word about the land workers. I wish the War Minister would tell us what is going to be the policy of the authorities in this connection. One of the most important methods by which we shall fight this war is by raising food in this country, and so avoiding having to purchase from abroad. Therefore, I hope it will be possible to get an assurance that land workers, particularly in the higher categories, will be kept working on the land, and that we shall avoid what happened on the last occasion, when men in important key positions were taken away and had to be brought back. Now, when it is important that we should produce more food, everything should be done to keep our key men—ploughmen, stockmen, men who are essential to the efficient running of a farm—at their posts. I hope the Secretary for War will bear in mind that that work is a war service.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The first Amendment was concerned with removing the possibility of men under 20 being called up under this Bill. Those men are mainly unmarried. Now, when we have disposed of that, I am asked whether we are going to exempt married men.

Mr. Mander: No.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Whether there will be a distinction between married and unmarried men. I understand that that is the question. If so, I thought I had answered it yesterday, when I said that our intention would be to call up according to age groups. The higher the age group, the more considerable proportion there will be of married men. I could not give an undertaking that married men will not be called up.

Mr. Mander: It is no good approaching the Debate in this spirit. We want to come to an agreement, to understand

each other, and if the Secretary of State deliberately tries to evade the point it will be difficult to do so. The point I am putting is not whether married men are or are not going to be called up, but whether there is going to be any differentiation in calling up men according to the number of dependants they have. [Interruption.] I did mention that, and the Minister of Labour, sitting beside the Secretary of State, heard it, and nodded his head when I made the remark. It is no good displaying ill-temper. We want to act in a good spirit, and if the Secretary of State—

The Chairman: I would make an appeal to the Committee generally that if something is said in a way that an hon. Member does not like he should not reply in the same hostile spirit but should endeavour to avoid creating ill-feeling.

Mr. Mander: I am endeavouring to raise a matter which is creating tremendous feeling in the country. I am sure the country wants some guidance. What I wish to know is whether there will be any distinction as between the calling up of one person and of another according to whether they have dependants or not. Up to the present I gather that the answer is that there will be no distinction at all as between married or single persons or according to whether they have dependants or not. If that is the Minister's view I just want him to say so.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will do my best to give guidance to the hon. Gentleman. We explained yesterday that we intended to call up the whole Army in age groups, and the further you go up the scale the more married men there will be, and probably the more dependants. We do not propose to lay down any principle on that. There is in the Bill a Clause which deals with exceptional hardship. When an application is made under that Clause it can be dealt with. With regard to key men, there is a Schedule of Reserved Occupations, and from time to time it will be necessary to determine whether a man's services are better employed in the armed Forces or in assuring the productive capacity of the country. The Government will bear that in mind. Agriculture will not, of course, be the least important of the productive occupations. It is our intention to go


in to this war, not with the idea of limiting our efforts but with the idea of putting them forward in the best direction to the maximum extent.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able, on the Third Reading, to inform the House what efforts are being made, apart from conscription, to enlist the voluntary assistance of other people who are British subjects or who are refugees in this country?

The Chairman: I am afraid I could not allow that.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will it be out of Order on the Third Reading?

The Chairman: I was going to suggest that if it lay with me—which it does not, as it will be when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair—the right hon. Gentleman would not be allowed to answer.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it, and let me know privately?

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: Following other procedure, I will call the Clauses to which there is no Amendment down, and perhaps hon. Members will stop me at any Clause if they desire to say anything on it; otherwise I shall put the Clauses en bloc.

Clauses 2 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14. —(Reinstatement in civil employment.)

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page, 17, line 11, after "service," to insert:
or by whom a member of His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces called out for service under the permanent enactments relating to those forces, whether before or after the commencement, of this Act.
This Amendment, and the following Amendments which stand in my name, need not occupy much of our time. I propose to speak only to the first Amendment, and the other Amendments, as far as I am concerned, will be left untouched, because they appear to be consequential. It will be recalled that when we were considering the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill a

provision was inserted which entitled the men to be called up under those Acts to be reinstated, if practicable, by their employers. There is a provision of the same kind in the present Bill, but there appears to be some doubt as to whether the men who come within the scope of the Military Training Act and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act are included. That doubt may be due to some technical difficulty in drafting the present Measure. We can all appreciate that the Parliamentary draftsmen have had a great deal of work to do in the last few days, and if there is some technical difficulty or some lapse we may readily forgive them. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that all the men are to be protected as far as protection can be afforded, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely in sympathy with the purpose of these Amendments.

2.27 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure the whole Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for putting this series of Amendments upon the Paper. It is really a technical problem. A number of those in the age group under the Military Training Act have not yet been called up although they have registered, and it is doubtful whether they would retain their reinstatement rights. The same is the case under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. The Amendments of the hon. Member rectify what might have been a serious omission. This class of amendment also covers the Territorials called out for service, as I am sure the Committee would like it to do. As it is so technical I cannot be sure now that every little thing is covered, and the House will be able to do that in another Act if necessary. The Committee and myself are grateful to the hon. Member for putting down these Amendments. They meet the desire of the Committee, and remove what would have been a very serious flaw in the Clause. I am glad to accept them.

Amendments agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 17, line 12, leave out "so called up," and insert:
called from his civil employment for service connected with the present emergency.

In line 16, leave out "called up," and insert:
so called as aforesaid.

In line 41, leave out "up," and insert:
 from his civil employment for service connected with the present emergency.

In page 18, line 3, leave out "called up under this Act for service," and insert:
 or were called from their civil employment for service connected with the present emergency.

In line 13, leave out "up for service," and insert:
from his civil employment for service connected with the present emergency.

In line 17, leave out "called up for service," and insert:
 so called as aforesaid.

In line 20, leave out "called up," and insert:
so called as aforesaid.

In line 25, leave out "virtue of the provisions of this Act," and insert:
 reason of their having been called from their civil employment for service connected with the present emergency.

In line 33, at the end, insert:
 (5) In this section the expression ' His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces "has the same meaning as in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act 1939, and the expression permanent enactments relating to His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces ' means the enactments (including any proclamation, Order in Council, regulations, warrant, or other instrument) mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section one of that Act; and the employer by whom a person called from his civil employment for service connected with the present emergency ' means the employer by whom a person was employed when that person was called up under the Military Training Act, 1939, called out under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act, 1939, called up under this Act, or called into actual service, ordered to join the royal navy, ordered to serve in the royal marine forces, called out on permanent service, embodied or called out for service, under the permanent enactments relating to His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces." — [Mr. Shinwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 24 ordered to stand part' of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PERSONAL INJURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1. — (Allowances and pensions in respect of certain war injuries and war service injuries.)

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Minister may, and shall, if so directed by the High Court, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising out of any such decision.
May I ask for your guidance, Colonel Clifton Brown? The Amendment is directed to a very similar point to that of the proposed new Clause— (Duty of the Minister to state a special case) which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). Would it be possible for me to discuss the issues raised by these two Amendments together?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and if it is the wish of the Committee to discuss the whole thing together, I am quite agreeable.

Mr. Foot: I have put forward the Amendment and the new Clause in order to enable the Minister to deal with certain points which were raised in the Debate yesterday. Under Clause 1, it is provided that the Minister may make a scheme providing for compensation for war injuries. As was pointed out in the Debate yesterday, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough, the Minister is in the position that he is both the legislator and judiciary. He is the man who makes the scheme, and he also decides whether, under the terms of the scheme, any particular claimant is entitled to receive the benefits which the scheme provides. I believe that those of us who have any very clear recollection of what was done in the last War, all of us who sit in this House, must be aware of the enormous difficulties which can arise upon questions of war compensation. We have all had to consider matters of that kind in our dealings with war compensation cases among our own constituents, and we know what a great sense of hardship can be created if it is felt, rightly or wrongly, that the Ministry of Pensions has not dealt fairly with some particular case. A good deal was said about the work by the Minister of Pensions yesterday which there is no need to repeat to-day.
What I am proposing in my first Amendment is that, if any question arises as to whether, under a scheme, a certain claimant is or is not entitled to receive benefit, it shall be possible for the Minister himself, or the man if he goes to the High Court, to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. The Minister yesterday pointed out the difficulties of litigation in time of war, and, dealing with another part of the Bill, he said that it would be a very difficult matter to bring medical and other witnesses in great numbers from one part of the country to another. None of those objections applies to this Clause. It is simply a question of having a case stated and of going to court and having your advocates on either side. The Amendment would make it possible when schemes have been framed, for test cases to be taken to the High Court from time to time. No one in his senses would suggest that a Government Department is better qualified than a court of law to decide such cases.
The new Clause is directed to another point which was raised in the Debate yesterday. It was pointed out that the Minister is to judge whether a war service injury has been incurred and to determine whether he is satisfied that the injury has arisen out of and in course of the volunteer's performance of his duty. Reference was made to the words in the Workmen's Compensation Act, which have been considered by the courts for 30 years, and the point was made that it would be better in that case, also, if in the last resort the court could construe these words. I do not think the Minister answered this point yesterday. You might have a Government Department applying somewhat different meanings from a court of law. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) pointed out that there might be a position in which the claimant would fall between two stools. The Minister might say that the injury had not arisen out of and in course of volunteer service, and a court of law might hold that the injury had arisen out of and in course of his ordinary employment. Surely, we ought to have the same tribunal deciding the meaning of the phrase in each case.
There is nothing in the proposed Amendments which would in any way hamper the work of the Ministry or would in any way make it more difficult to carry

out the Act. It would simply mean that test cases could be taken to the High Court from time to time. I should have thought that that would be of assistance to the Minister of Pensions in determining how to administer the Statute. Even in these times when we have graver problems to consider, it is necessary that as far as we can we should preserve the rights of individual citizens and, above all, make it clear to the country that, as far as we can assure it in this House, justice will be done to those people who volunteer for service and who receive injuries in the course of that service.

2.38 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I will deal with the Amendment and the new Clause, and argue the case under two heads. On the question of law, I personally give way to the hon. Member, because he knows more about the law than I do; I have to rely on my legal advisers. When it comes to facts, I hope that I shall be able to hold my own with the hon. Member. On the question of law, I appreciate and sympathise with the point of view that the hon. Member has put forward, and the object of the Amendment. As I indicated yesterday, the Government will be ready to reconsider the whole question when the period of emergency passes from us and we come to the time when we can settle down to an orderly discussion of schemes approved and passed by this House dealing with the question of pensions after the war is over. The hon. Member referred to the confusion that occurred during the earlier period of the last war, and said that he had not very vivid recollections of that period. I have vivid recollections of it. Why did that confusion occur? It occurred because the House had not given to one individual Minister the power which I hope they will give to me under this Bill. For two years we were under a system of confusion. Then the House had to pass an Act to deal with the question. When the emergency was over the House had to pass a Bill dealing with the position as it was then.
I am advised that the suggested Amendment would cause confusion in the administration of State compensation. The whole object of the Bill is to provide very promptly for all occurrences of injury and to give the necessary financial assistance to meet the cases that arise.

Mr. Foot: indicated dissent.

Sir W. Womersley: That is so, and I can prove it to the hon. Member. I am glad to say that my Department has been so careful in its preparations that in cases of injury to the civilian population of this country in any part of the country I could deal with them tomorrow morning, but not if I accepted the Amendment. I want the hon. Member to appreciate the point very clearly. Quickness of decision is essential. Those of us who had experience in the administration of pensions questions in the last War know that lack of quickness in decision was the real complaint. The fact that there was not quickness and certainty of decision, which is so essential in dealing with these cases, was the cause of complaint. Can the hon. Member give me any idea how long it would take to appeal to the High Court on a point of law at this stage of great emergency? If that uncertainty is to exist, what about the position of the claimant? What about the people who are depending upon a decision being arrived at by a superior court?

Mr. Foot: I should say that the matter is perfectly clear to everyone in the House except the Minister. If he proposes to grant the claim, there will be no delay. This question of stating a case for the courts would arise only where the Minister has turned down a claim. No one to whom he proposes to grant compensation will be held up in any way if the Amendment is passed.

Sir W. Womersley: There would be the uncertainty of the position.

Mr. Foot: No.

Sir W. Womersley: There must be uncertainty if there is a right of appeal to the High Court. I want to be in a position where the House trusts me to carry on in a generous and proper way, without being tied hand and foot by legal quibbles which do not matter at all until you come to a definite scheme. We are dealing with an emergency, and the only sound and proper way is to place trust in the Minister who is to administer the Act, in the meantime. Hon. Members will have the right to come to the House and to raise a question if any case is not treated properly. There is certainly a better chance of dealing with such matters directly in that way than by

going to the High Court. It is far better that we should trust to our Parliamentary system whereby an hon. Member can raise these questions in the House, without there being the necessity to say that the matter is sub judice and must not be mentioned because it is a matter for the courts. Even if I reject a claim, acting on advice, on the ground that the injury has not arisen out of and in the course of such service, the claimant can pursue his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in common law. He can also have assistance provided under health benefit or under special schemes of the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is no suggestion of a person who is in need being left to the mercy of the world. 
When we come to the question of fact and not to the legal side of the matter, I claim that the alternative of leaving the claimant to go to the court is, from the administrative point of view, in time of war, wholly impracticable. Recourse to the courts is by way of petition of right—

Mr. Foot: This provides machinery for getting a case stated.

Sir W. Womersley: I am going to rely on my legal friends and I say that actions of this kind throughout a period of war would put a cog in the machinery and that no man would be able to administer it to the satisfaction of the House. The real point at issue is this: I have to decide whether a person has received injury by enemy action or in the course of his duty. That is a medical point, and I submit that I shall have to rely on the advice which I receive from the medical officers of the Ministry. Seeing that that is the main point at issue I am quite prepared—and I have consulted those who are responsible for the drafting of the Bill—to insert in the scheme a provision that where there is serious difference of opinion as to whether a man is injured or not the case may be referred to an independent medical referee appointed by the Royal College of Surgeons or the Royal College of Physicians. The question of fact is whether a man or woman has received serious injury or not, and on that I shall be advised by an independent medical referee if my own medical officers are in doubt as to whether the man has received such injury, I submit that that is dealing fairly and squarely with the applicant. I know how hon.


Members try to get Amendments inserted into a Bill—

Mr. Foot: Does the Minister suggest that there is anything improper in moving Amendments?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I do not say that.

Mr. Foot: You have done so and, it is most offensive.

Sir W. Womersley: I do not think it is offensive. I do not wish to say anything offensive because I know I should be a marked man. I want to dealt with the matter fairly and squarely. I said, and I repeat, that hon. Members like to get concessions put into a Bill, I say that distinctly. It has been done and it will be done again. I should like to meet the hon. Member in his Amendment but my legal advisers say that it would make the Bill unworkable in a state of emergency.

Mr. Foot: Who is telling us that? You or your legal advisers?

2.49 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I wish to call attention to the remarks of the Minister in which he said that some Members desire to get Amendments into a Bill. We are all agreed that we desire to facilitate emergency legislation at this time, but an insinuation like that, a deliberate insinuation, that hon. Members have put down Amendments for the purposes of personal advertisement—the Minister's remarks could mean nothing else—

Sir W. Womersley: I did not say that.

Mr. Griffith: The remarks could mean nothing else.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member has no right to interpret in that way anything that I say.

Mr. Griffith: The Minister has no right to make such an insinuation. We are endeavouring in this hurried legislation to put a few points as safeguards, and to see that the worst consequences do not follow. What the Minister said could have only one meaning, and I do not believe it is in accordance with the rules of this House to impute motives to hon. Members in what they do. When he spoke about delay the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) interjected, very much to the point, that there would be no delay

whatever if the Minister grants a claim, and all that the Amendment does is to give what I hope will be a very rare procedure, it would not often be called upon, the right if any point is raised for a case to be stated. It is obviously, I should have thought, desirable that there should be some legal interpretations of what is actually meant. Any suggestion that the procedure proposed by the Amendment would lead to a general delay in the granting of claims is obviously without any foundation whatever. As soon as the Minister has granted the claim there would be no application for a case, and no suggestion of any legal quibbles. The only question is that if on advice he thought he ought to refuse, there would be an opportunity for the matter to go before some legal tribunal to decide; it would become a test case and would afford some guidance to the Minister for future action.
The Minister said that if the scheme is administered as it ought to be there would be no reason to go to the courts at all. I grant him that, but that applies to any appeal in any conceivable circumstances. If magistrates always gave the right decision there would be no need for appeal to quarter sessions. That argument is quite puerile, and is one which should not have been advanced. It is an argument against there ever being any appeals against any conceivable procedure. When the Minister made his observation about a petition of right, the law officers of the Crown could be observed somewhere in the vicinity of the Front Bench. They are no longer there. I wonder whether the responsibility of supporting that proposition has been too much for them. How can a question of a petition of right conceivably arise when all that the Amendment asks is that a case should be stated to the High Court? The Minister tells us that he has consulted some legal advisers, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate or some unnamed legal adviser. I should like to know who it was told him that there ought to be a petition of right?

Mr. Goldie: Would it not come in under Sub-section (3), paragraph (b)?

Mr. Griffith: The Amendment to which I am speaking is for a case to be stated.

Mr. Goldie: I thought the Amendments were being taken together.

Mr. Griffith: So they are, but at the present moment I am dealing with the stating of a case and all that the Minister has committed himself to is the statement that on some legal advice given by some mysterious legal adviser—

Mr. Goldie: Not me.

Mr. Griffith: I acquit the hon. and learned Member—but the Minister has committed himself to the statement that in order to state a case for the opinion of the High Court it is necessary to proceed by petition of right. I should like some legal authority for that proposition. I suggest that possibly the Minister was inadvertently addressing himself to another Amendment.

Sir W. Womersley: I was dealing with the whole question.

Mr. Griffith: We are dealing with the first and third Amendment on the Order Paper, and if. the Minister does not realise it yet he had better realise it now, because he has committed himself to the proposition that in order to state a case for the opinion of the High Court it is necessary to proceed by petition of right, and that is so revolutionary a proposition that I should be glad to know whether the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate has been consulted in this matter and whether they agree. I am not hereto make unnecessary trouble, but the way in which this Amendment has been answered leaves me with the impression that the matter has not been properly considered. We are only endeavouring to deal with borderline cases. I do not suppose that many would come into it. In the greater number of cases, the Minister would deal with the cases with sympathy, and they would be granted and settled; but we do not desire that a position should arise in which a false interpretation of the law might become embodied in the practice of the Ministry without there being any possibility of giving a legal decision as to whether, from the legal point of view, the Ministry's decisions were correctly based or not. I suggest that the Minister ought to take further advice on the matter before he comes to a final conclusion.

2.56 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I want to express my regret to the two Hon. Members opposite that I did not appreciate what was the

position. I thought we were discussing the first and second Amendments but I now understand that we are dealing only with the first and third Amendments on the Paper. I do not, of course, question the legal knowledge of either of the hon. Members, but I confess that I am amazed by the way in which these Amendments are drafted. I assure them that had I, on a day such as this, had the audacity to put down an Amendment, it would have been very differently drawn, with a view to obviating delay. After all, the delay will not come until the case is put down. Had I been putting forward an Amendment, it would have read:
 "provided that the Minister may and shall, if so directed by the High Court, state a special case for the opinion of the High Court on any question of law arising out of any decision, and such case shall be heard forthwith.
What will happen at the present time? If a case is put down month after month and year after year, it might pass without that case being heard. It takes months to get on in the Divisional Court at the present time. I am convinced that a delay would take place in the hearing of these cases even if the Amendments were passed. I always think that special cases are a very dangerous weapon indeed for they depend entirely upon the way in which they are drawn. Personally I should be prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister.

Mr. Foot: I can only say that if the hon. and learned Gentleman is moving an Amendment to the Amendment we will willingly accept it.

Mr. Goldie: Heaven forbid that I should do any such thing. I disapprove entirely of the Amendment. I was only trying to clarify the position.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Oliver:: I think the Minister has misconceived the intention of the Amendment. I could not follow him when he said that if he rejected a claim that was made, the injured person might then go to the courts and claim workmen's compensation. That is not precisely the position. Two separate points are being considered. The first is whether the injury is sustained by a gainfully occupied person. If a claim is made, the Minister himself must determine, and not the court. When the case goes to the court, it has to be decided whether the accident


arose out of and in the course of the man's employment. Therefore, the Minister has to determine one phrase and the court has to determine the other. As a result, if the Minister decided that a man had not sustained his injury while following gainful employment, the man would have no redress. What he could do would be to go to the court and ask the court whether he received his injury while following his employment. The unfortunate person might find that the court decided that he did not receive his injury in the course of his employment and, as a result, he would have no redress against the Minister's decision. The Minister, with the most generous intention, might come to the conclusion that the person, when injured, was not pursuing gainful employment. For instance, the man might have been injured when going into the street or when going between railway wagons for his own purpose, and it might be held by the court that he was not then following his gainful occupation. That kind of interpretation could be imposed on these words. For that reason, I think the Amendment is one that ought to be accepted, for otherwise I can conceive great hardships occurring.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will not restate the arguments that have been made, but I am in full sympathy with all the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I want to ask the Minister one question. As I understand the position, at the end of the conflict in which we are engaging, our liberties are to be restored to us. An appeal tribunal is then to be set up. I understand that that is a definite undertaking. May I take it that all cases under this Act, whether claims made during the next few years or after the conflict has ended, can be reopened and heard before the appeal tribunal? If I could have that undertaking, I should be perfectly satisfied.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I was interested in what the Minister said with regard to the question at issue. He said that it was whether the person had been injured or not, and that in his scheme he proposes to have a medical appeal. I wonder whether the Minister, in making the scheme, would consider making the man's own medical

adviser the authority. I cannot understand why there has always been a refusal to accept the man's own medical adviser. I suggest that the Minister in his scheme should be prepared to accept the man's medical adviser as the authority.

3.3 p.m.

Sir W. Womersley: The point made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will be considered before I bring the scheme forward. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft), there are two types of claims. One is the claim for a temporary injury which may last a fortnight, three weeks, a month or even more. Then, if it becomes something in the nature of a permanent injury, of course it comes under the pensions scheme. I cannot conceive that the House of Commons would allow of a pensions scheme going on, after the time of emergency was over, without there being a right of appeal. I am all in favour of a right of appeal in ordinary circumstances, and certainly, I say that in my opinion there will bound to be a tribunal set up when we come to the definite scheme afterwards. My hon. Friend asked whether, when cases had come forward during the period of war and the Minister had turned them down, the people would have a right of appeal before the tribunal then. I should certainly think they will if the applicant can claim that there is a permanent injury.
I would not like to give an opinion as to whether a man could go to a tribunal in, say, four years' time and say that an injury had kept him from work for a fortnight or three weeks, and that he had been refused compensation. If the same procedure is taken as was taken with pensions in the last war, if a man claimed that he had a permanent injury as a result of warlike actions or a permanent injury coming under the provisions of the Bill and the scheme that will be put forward, he would have a right of appeal to the tribunal. I should like to add that if I did cause any offence to the hon. Member I am very sorry, for I did not intend to do so. I made my remark in all innocence, knowing, from the time when I was a Private Member, the great pride I felt in getting an Amendment through. I was going on to say that, realising that fact, I was sorry that I


had to refuse the Amendments of the hon. Members opposite. I regret it if they think that I have given them any offence because such was not my intention. I want them and other hon. Members to bear in mind that in regard to this scheme I have taken the advice of those who have great experience in these matters.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does my hon. Friend refer to the Law Officers?

Sir W. Womersley: I did not say so. I am speaking generally of the advice which has been taken and I have said that, personally, I have the utmost sympathy with the idea of an appeal tribunal. If it is my fortune to have to administer this scheme I would much prefer to have an appeal tribunal. I, at any rate, would then be relieved of a great deal of responsibility. If I have to administer the scheme, knowing that the final decision in these matters will rest with me, it means that the burden of responsibility on me will be much greater than it would be if I could refuse a particular claim, knowing that the claimant would be able to appeal to a tribunal. But, as I say, I am advised that it would be impossible to do what we want to do and that is to deal at once with every case of injury, if these Amendments were accepted, and I am sorry therefore that I am compelled to resist them.

Mr. Foot: I wish to say at once to the Minister that I would not suspect him of being personally offensive in any way. That is understood. While we cannot accept the validity of his arguments we do not, in view of the need for expedition, propose to take the Amendment to a Division and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: There is an important point which arises on this Clause. It deals with war injuries sustained by "gainfully occupied persons." A bachelor or widower would probably employ a housekeeper and such a housekeeper would be a "gainfully occupied person." A wife, however, would not be "gainfully

occupied" in the sense that she would not be paid a salary, although she is in most cases the economic centre of the family. If a wife were injured in an air raid, the husband would probably have to pay somebody else to look after the household. I wish to ask whether, for the purposes of the Bill, married women would be considered "gainfully occupied persons"?

Sir W. Womersley: Wives will come under category "C" which I referred to yesterday. I referred to certain classes of persons who were included as categories "A" and "B" and I mentioned that other classes of persons would be included as well. The scheme which I shall put before the House will include wives whose services, owing to serious injury, have to be replaced by those of paid substitutes.

Mr. Cocks: I wish to thank the Minister for that explanation.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3. — (Relief from liability to pay compensation or damages.)

3.11 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out "or at common law"
Under this Clause it is provided that if a man comes under the war injuries scheme set up by the Bill, he shall lose all his rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the Employers' Liability Act and any similar Statutes in Northern Ireland, or at common law. The purpose of the Amendment is to preserve a man's common law rights. When the Minister referred earlier to the question of proceeding by way of petition of right I think he had in mind this Amendment and not the previous Amendment. That, I think clears up the misunderstanding which arose. Even if a man who has certain rights at common law has to proceed by petition of right, that does not seem to be an insuperable difficulty. It is not an impossible or difficult procedure. It means only that you have to use one procedure instead of another. You may have to obtain the fiat of the Law Officers before you can proceed. It will rarely happen that a man who comes under the war


injuries scheme would have any common law rights, but there may be cases in which there has been some breach of duty by somebody else, where somebody else has been negligent or has failed to carry out a duty which the common law or specific Statutes placed upon him. Is there any reason why, where there has been negligence resulting in injury, we should relieve negligent persons from the consequences of their own actions?
It is no use talking about the courts being cluttered up with a great number of cases. Only in a few cases can this question arise, but by putting in these words "or at common law" in the Bill and thus depriving people of their rights at common law, we may in those few cases cause great injustice. There is no reason why we should do that in a time of war any more than at any other time. The Minister said yesterday that there might be difficulties in the matter of litigation in time of war, but nobody suggests that the work of the law courts is coming to an end or that it will not be possible to proceed in the law courts during a time of war. The law courts carried on during the last War and we have passed a Statute providing for the courts and where they are to sit and so forth during a time of war.
There is no more reason now than there is in a time of peace for depriving people of the rights which the law gives them. I agree that this Amendment probably should not stand by itself and that it might be undesirable to have a double reference, but that could easily be provided for, as it is provided for under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, whereby a man, if he has a common law right, can get what is due to him under the Acts or under his common law right. That would be a reasonable method of getting round the difficulty here. It would only mean the insertion of an Amendment later saying that the claimant should have to elect as between the one remedy and the other. There does not seem to be in the reasons put forward yesterday by the Minister sufficient justification for depriving the few people who are likely to be concerned of the remedies which the law gives them.

3.14 p.m.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member, I take it, refers to the possibility of cases

arising of men not being satisfied with the amount which they would receive under the scheme, and the possibility that they might consider that they had a better chance by taking an action at common law against the employer. He suggests that only one or two such cases, at most, are likely to arise, but experience of human nature shows that an injured person is likely to adopt any methods open to him by which he thinks he can get any higher payment. There is no means test in these cases. It is payment of what is considered fair compensation for an injury received, and I submit that all should come under it and receive compensation from the national Exchequer rather than rely upon employers or any other source for compensation. I made that point clear in my Second Reading speech yesterday. That is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced, and I am sure the House agreed with the sentiment that it would be better to relieve these cases as a national charge than to put them on to employers. I cannot see what advantage it would be to the person who makes a claim to have the right, suggested by the Amendment, to take an action at common law. If he were being refused compensation, I could understand why he should want to go to common law, but when he is going to get compensation, I cannot see why there should be any objection in his mind to this procedure.

Mr. Foot: If a man goes to common law, he may get very much more.

Sir W. Womersley: The same argument applies as I have applied to the other point. We want to save any litigation if it is at all possible, because we realise the difficulty there will be in pursuing litigation during a period of war. I know that some hon. Members may not agree with me. I have had only one experience of fighting a law action, and I won it, but I lost considerably by winning it, and during a long and reasonably successful business career I never went into another law action.

Mr. Pritt: Do not pay out the public for that.

Sir W. Womersley: I am only giving my own personal experience. I am advised that recovery of damages in time of war may become a matter of considerable difficulty. It may be that hon.


Members think it will not, but that is what I am advised, and if there is long delay—I am sure hon. and learned Members opposite will appreciate this, because I know it happens in workmen's compensation cases—unless the workman has a powerful trade union behind him, the long delay that can be made to occur in law cases means very often that the man has no money with which to fight his case when it comes up. I hope hon. Members have read in the Official Report of yesterday the remarks of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on this matter, and that the Amendment will be withdrawn. I am sorry that I cannot accept it, for the reason that in the opinion of those best able to judge it would make the matter so difficult that we should not be able to do what we want to do, and that is deal with all these cases with expedition.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Griffith:: However this matter is decided, I am desirous that it should be decided on the right grounds, and I am sorry that the Minister on this and on other occasions has treated the remedy which we propose, by this Amendment, of taking an action at Common Law, as if there was one or the other choice, as if we had to choose here and now whether the new scale would apply in all cases or whether the Common Law would apply in all cases. That is not the position in the least. This scale will apply, and I hope it will be satisfactory, in the vast majority of cases, but this is only the position that exists at present under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The vast majority of injuries are settled under that Act. It is only exceptional cases that go to Common Law, and they go to Common Law for the simple reason that the circumstances show a Common Law liability. There is some additional element of negligence which entitles a workman to proceed against an individual for a degree of damages which he could not obtain under the workmen's compensation scale and which is only available to him because of the circumstances of the particular case. Therefore, however this matter is decided, I hope that it will not lie decided on the grounds given by the Minister, because those grounds, like those, in all respects, given by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) yesterday—who, I believe, had not heard

the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) —are not correct. They do not represent the facts.
It is not a question, therefore, of relying on scales or of relying on the Minister. Everybody will rely on scales when they can, and they will only go to Common Law when Common Law gives them a ground. How that can lead to delay passes my imagination. It is only in cases where the injured person sees a chance, on grounds on which he is advised in the circumstances of the case, of getting a great deal more than the scale allows, cases for which the scale is not really intended to provide at all, that he will take the risk of delay. Therefore, I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter. He would not be having his procedure altered in more than one case out of 400 or 500, and I cannot believe that, even in war time, the resources of our courts will be so severely strained that they could not deal with these cases, just as they deal with the many other cases that come before them. In these days it is difficult for hon. Members to put forward Amendments, even if they are convinced of their justice, and to press them to a Division with that pertinacity which they would deserve in ordinary times. We all realise that, but I still maintain that this Amendment is justified, both in law and in justice.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Pritt:: What the Minister has said is so disastrous in its implications that a word or two ought to be said in answer. I have always had a genuine respect for Ministers who have to deal with pure questions of law which are millions of miles from their understanding. Let me give an illustration—I do not think it is wrong, though it may prove to be so— which I believe to be accurate. Take the case of a man earning £6 a week. An ordinary citizen runs into him with a motor car and kills him, and his widow may, by going to law, get many thousands of pounds compensation. That position will continue during the war, and it is nonsense for the Minister, just because a solicitor many years ago sent him in an extravagant bill of costs for an action which he won, to suggest that litigation in the course of a war will be so difficult that people ought to be told, "Your chance of recovering £5,000 is so beset


with difficulties that we will take it away from you by Act of Parliament for your own benefit." It is an abrogation of one of the most important functions of Government. Everybody who had anything to do with the law courts in the late War knew that they functioned just as well as they did in peace-time.
Take an illustration which comes closer to what the Minister is now trying to do. Suppose that the man who is earning £6 a week is not run over by a motor car, but is destroyed by the grossly negligent action of some person who is trying to clear up the mess after an air raid. The widow of that man will then be entitled to come under the scale if she wishes and get, say, £250; but if she wishes to sue the man whose negligence has done the damage she may get some thousands of pounds. If it is difficult for her to bring an action her counsel will tell her whether her difficulties are so great that she ought to resort to the Government under the scale. The Minister is asking that the widow should have a little money from the Government instead of what she is entitled to have from the purse of the individual who caused the damage, assuming he can pay. If the experience of the last War is repeated, in every reasonable and proper case when an individual is held liable the Government will stand behind him and pay the money. I do not think the question of the petition of right which is a perfectly feasible thing to bring, will arise in any case. Unless I have my law and facts very wrong, at least 99.9 per cent. of the cases which will arise in the narrow field we are considering will be actions for tort. War is no reason for creating injustices, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider making this small alteration.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: In ordinary circumstances I should have no hesitation in strongly supporting the Amendment, for I have the strongest views about giving to a Minister powers which should be exercised in the courts. Suppose that in the next few months I have to advise a client whether to take advantage of this scheme or to proceed at Common Law, what is the first question I shall ask myself? With considerable experience of the

Common Law Bar, it is, "Is the man whom you are suing insured?" I have the greatest doubts whether it will be worth while proceeding at Common Law unless and until one is satisfied that the defendant is insured. I have doubts whether in the ordinary third-party risks there is not a war risk clause in the insurance policy. For that reason, unless and until the law is altered and it is impossible for an insurance company to ride off on a war risk clause, I feel that in 99 cases out of 100 it would be better for the injured person to leave himself in the hands of the Minister.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument applies only where the man who is guilty of negligence is not insured. Some of those responsible would be employés of a Government Department, and am I not right in thinking that it is the modern practice of Government Departments, where negligence is found against one of their servants, to pay the damages?

Mr. Goldie: I was taking the instance given by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), in which somebody was injured through a man in the street clearing up after an air raid. I fail to see that in that case the injured person would gain anything by proceeding at Common Law against a man who was a man of straw. With a long experience of Government Departments I would only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that he may be prepared to chance it, but I am not.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE AND MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.

CLAUSE 11. £ (Short Title and extent.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. David Adams: May I say a word on Clause 3?

The Chairman: I have passed Clause 3. I am calling the Clauses one by one.

Mr. Adams: I thought we were at liberty at raise a question any time after you had run through the Clauses.

The Chairman: I was calling the Clauses one by one as arranged and as we have been doing, hon. Members being asked to intervene on any clause and stop the Chair proceeding when they desire to speak on such clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.35 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: There is one matter on which I should like some information. Under Clause 3 the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a scheme applying a pensions order to mariners and so forth in case of death or disablement. As the Committee may be aware, there are in existence a number of schemes for granting pensions and retiring allowances to masters, officers and engineering staffs in the Mercantile Marine, and there are also certain firms which have schemes of compensation for injuries sustained during peace years. The new proposals in the Bill apply to disabilities or death which may be suffered due to enemy action. What I desire to know is whether the previous allowances which may have been granted in peacetime to retired mariners or engineers who may re-enter the Mercantile Marine during the war will be safeguarded. Will war pensions and allowances be granted regardless of the means of the prospective recipients or not?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure my hon. Friend that those pre-war allowances and pensions are not affected in any way by this scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCEAND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6. — (Postponement of sickness and disablement benefit in cases of war injury.)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out from "that" and to insert:
 an appeal shall lie to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal established under Section eight of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, whose.
The Committee will see that I have put down on this Clause two Amendments directed to the same point. The Clause deals with the case where a man may have been injured in circumstances which would bring him within the Personal Injuries Bill which the House discussed a few moments ago. In such a case it has to be decided whether he has been injured as a result of his volunteer service and comes under the new injuries scheme or whether his injury is not due to that and he comes under National Health Insurance. It is not possible to tell as yet whether the terms of the new scheme will be more generous, or less generous than those provided by the existing law, but I observe that the decision as to whether a man comes under one scheme or the other, that is to say whether his injury is a war injury or an injury in respect of which he is entitled to draw national health insurance, is a decision that has to be taken by the Minister of Pensions. Here, again, we are putting the Minister of Pensions in the position of a judge. It is remarkable how, in the last day or two, we have been adding to the judicial tasks of the Minister of Pensions. Seeing that it may be a matter of some importance to the people concerned, because the benefits may not be exactly equal, there ought to be some possibility of an appeal after the Minister of Pensions has given his decision. The Committee will see that Sub-section (2) of this Clause states:
Where, for the purpose of any such scheme as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing Sub-section, a decision has


been made by the Minister of Pensions that any injury is or is not an injury in respect of which a payment may be made under the scheme,
his decision shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of the insurance Acts, and any other decision that may have been taken by any other authority has to be altered in order to conform to the decision of the Minister of Pensions. This may affect the rights of insured persons and it seems that it would not be unreasonable to provide a system of appeals. We have an appeal tribunal in existence under the War Pensions Act, 1919, which is accustomed to decide precisely the sort of questions which will have to be decided under this Clause. What has to be decided here is whether a man's injuries have been received in the course of his service and as a result of his service. Seeing that we have the machinery already in existence, it seems to me that it would not hold up the operation of this Measure and would provide some additional safeguards for the rights of the very many people who are likely to be affected if an Amendment of this kind were inserted in the Bill.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I feel that this Amendment would have been more germane to the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The House discussed a very similar problem for some considerable time on that previous Bill, and the House having decided against such an appeal in the previous Bill I am afraid that it will not be possible for me to make a change in the present one. I have no desire to be in any way stiff-necked on this matter and, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) knows, I shall be prepared to accept an Amendment of his which is lower down on the Paper. But he must excuse me if I decline to accept this Amendment and stand by the conclusion which the House has already come to that the decision should be made by the Minister of Pensions and that an appeal should not lie to the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. Foot: In view of the promised concession a little later on and the way in which the Minister has answered I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7. — (Modification of rights to benefit of persons in receipt of disability pensions and injury allowances).

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

345 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: There are just one or two questions which I should like to raise. The first point is a technical one. Where-ever we have dealt with National Health Insurance benefits in the past we have always distinguished between what are called statutory benefits and additional benefits. I should like to know whether these words in Clause 7 under (a) will include both statutory and additional cash benefits for the purpose of calculating the amount to which the injured person would be entitled under the National Health Insurance Acts.
The second question is this. Where a person is injured in that way it is rather astonishing to find, by implication, in this Clause that he will receive less compensation from the State in respect of that injury than the amount of benefit that he would otherwise get from the National Health Insurance scheme, which is roughly £1 a week. The position applies in this way. We will suppose the war injury compensation will be 15s. The balance of 5s. will be thrown upon the approved society in respect of the first 26 weeks. In respect of insurance disablement benefit, however, he will get nothing at all from his approved society. That, I think, is the position as stated in the Clause. I would like to know how comes it about that any financial liability at all is thrown upon the funds of the approved society in respect of an injury arising out of the war. It seems to me that such liability is to be thrown upon them unfairly. That is to say, where a person receives an injury in the course of his employment and he gets workmen's compensation, there is no payment at all from the funds of the approved society; and where a person gets damages at common law in respect of accidents outside his employment that case, too, falls outside the" National Health Insurance scheme. I cannot see, therefore, how the State should be more mean than an employer in the case of workmen's compensation or an insurance company in the case of injuries at common law. These


are the questions that bother me. I am raising these points because in the offices of approved societies they will have some difficulty in calculating these amounts unless they are cleared up before the Bill becomes law.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: As the hon. Gentleman says, these are technical matters. As to the first question, with regard to the position of additional benefit, the Clause relates to both statutory and additional cash benefits. I was not quite certain if I got his point aright on the second question, because this follows the well-established precedent safeguarding the rights of insured persons during the war of 1914-18. The approved societies will have no difficulty in working the practice that they worked previously. For the first 26 weeks of the payment of injury allowances there is no benefit payable, either statutory or additional, from the approved society. After 26 weeks the societies are relieved of half the sickness benefit and of the whole of the disablement benefit. I think, on the whole, these represent a fairly generous settlement with the approved societies and they follow well-established precedent. If there are any other points that the hon. Gentleman would like cleared up further, I shall be very glad either to write him a letter or to discuss the matters with him personally or with representatives of approved societies.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13. — (Suspension of right to terminate membership of approved society.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I cannot very well understand the wording of the Clause where it says:
Suspension of right to terminate membership of approved society.
Does that refer to the case of a person who wants to transfer to the contributors' fund? There are only two places he can go to, another approved society or the contributors' fund.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: This is one of three Clauses, 11, 12 and 13, for the suspension of certain National Health Insurance work which is of a very detailed kind and causes a great deal of clerical labour. To reduce that clerical labour to a minimum, and to avoid the danger of confusion that may arise during the come and go of a great conflict, certain limitations on the freedom of individuals are proposed. It is proposed that the right of an insured person to determine his membership of an approved society should be in abeyance during the period of the war because, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than any one, the amount of work that arises out of the transfer of membership from one society to another is enormous. Like many other rights, this one must be put into cold storage until it can be restored at the end of the war.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14. — (Provision against double pensions).

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, to leave out "in the late War."
As the law now stands, a contributory old age pensioner who lost his son or stepson in the last War is entitled to draw the dependants' pension in respect of the loss of his son and his contributory old age pension as well. Under this Clause as now drafted, a contributory old age pensioner losing his son or stepson in this war will draw the dependants' pension in respect of the loss of the son, but it is proposed that his old age pension should be scaled down to a certain extent. It seems to us that there is no good reason for making this differentiation between two classes of persons each of whom has made a precisely similar sacrifice. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is good enough to accept the Amendment and I thank him in advance. At any rate, it says something for the House that at a time like this, when we have all these serious matters to consider, we are not too busy to make a small amendment in the interest of old age pensioners.

Mr. Elliot: In a word, I would recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The Chairman: There is to be a Royal Commission in a very short time and I think it would be convenient to suspend the Sitting.

Sitting suspended.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

National Service (Armed Forces) Bill,

Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Bill,

Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force, and Mercantile Marine) Bill,

National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned; —

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to, —

1.National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939.
 2.Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939.
 3.Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force, and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939.
 4.National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939.
 5.House of Commons (Service in His Majesty's Forces) Act, 1939.
 6.Isle of Man (War Legislation) Act, 1939.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

4.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
In moving this Motion, it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is proposed to meet tomorrow at 2.45 of the Clock, and we propose to consider the six Bills presented to-day, and four Measures which have come from another place. The National Registration Bill will be taken first, and it will be followed by the Trading with the Enemy Bill from another place. Any other necessary business will be brought forward.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George: I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on the Motion for Adjournment. There are some of us who would like to ask questions upon certain essential services, and to ask for information. I am thinking more particularly with regard to food production. I would like to know whether there will be an opportunity, and at what time, of having a discussion upon that particular item of national service. I have no doubt at all that there are other matters in which other Members are particularly interested, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the food-producing community of this country are in the dark as to what the Government expect them to do. I have never had any kind of circular to indicate what the Government would like us to do. I understand there are certain things which might not be regarded as essential, but others are. We should at once drop the non-essential things and use the soil for the purpose of producing the more essential commodities. Take potatoes, for example. At the present time there is a restriction upon the acreage of potatoes that you can raise. In fact, you are liable to a fine of £5 an acre if you increase your acreage. I do not suggest that that will remain, but it exists at the present time. We should like to know whether the Government want us to produce more potatoes. Then there is the question of the production of cereals. Certain lands could be used for the production of wheat. There are other lands not very useful for that purpose, which could produce oats.
Then there is the question of the production of pigs and other food commodities. We should like to know what it is that the Government expect us to do. We ought to have instructions. I inquired from the Surrey County Council Agricultural Committee, which is a very able body, on which there are big farmers. They have an excellent staff. I am particularly urgent about this question of information of what is required being given to us. You have to buy seeds, which may not be very easy to get, and delay will increase the difficulties enormously. Then there is the question of fertilisers. We want to know about them. Can the Chief Whip give us any information as to what opportunity will be given to us, not to attack and criticise but to seek information as to what the Government expect us to do, what assistance they will give to us and what assistance they expect us to give to others? For instance, in regard to those of us who have machinery, what do the Government expect us to do to help our neighbours? It is a question of the organisation of production.
Are we to assume that the War will be a short one? Everybody hopes for the best, but I am not at all sure that a short war will be the best for us. That, however, is another matter. If it is to be a long war, then we are confronted with very great and new difficulties in regard to the carriage of food to this country—difficulties with which we were not faced in the last War. Therefore, it is very important that we should not put off the problem of increased and intensified production for one moment longer than we tan avoid. I would ask the Chief Whip whether he can give us any information as to whether we shall have a chance of having full conversation in the House, so that publicity may be given on the advice of the Government upon these subjects, and we may be able to call attention to things in regard to which we are entirely in the dark. It is very important that we should know what is expected of us.

4.28 p.m.

Captain Margesson: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I had no notice that he was to raise this question, and it is, therefore, difficult for me to answer. I can say, however, that the Government will be ready to provide opportunities for discussion such as the right hon. Gentleman has outlined. I think I may say that plans are in an

advanced stage of preparation and it might well be that discussion will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House when we have passed the necessary legislation.

Mr. Lloyd George: There will be some legislation necessary?

Mr. Speaker: I must intervene to say that a Motion for Adjournment would not be a suitable occasion for a discussion such as is suggested as we could not refer to matters that would need legislation.

Mr. Lloyd George: Some of them will not require legislation.

Captain Margesson: I understand that some legislation will be necessary. I will convey the views of the right hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible, and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to give a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Tinker: May I ask the Chief Whip to indicate whether there is any likelihood of the House sitting after tomorrow? Can he give us any indication whether it is intended to sit on Tuesday? It may be difficult for him to say that definitely, but if he has it in mind to sit on Tuesday, will he tell us so, in order that we may make our arrangements?

Captain Margesson: It is almost certain that we shall be sitting on Tuesday, and Wednesday as well. I am discussing, through the usual channels, what hour will be most convenient, whether we should meet as usual at 2.45 p.m. and sit in the afternoon and the evening as at present, or whether it would be more convenient to meet earlier in the day in view of the black-outs. These matters are under discussion, but I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly about them.

Mr. Cocks: So far as to-morrow is concerned, I take it that we meet at 2.45?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir; we shall meet at 2.45. A number of hon. Members have indicated to me that they are leaving London to-night.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: Some of us who are officers in His Majesty's Forces have to take up important appointments to-morrow, and there is one matter which I should like to bring before the notice


of the Chief Whip. We have met to-day on the first day of a great and critical war. Can the Chief Whip give the House this assurance, that until such time as this House becomes completely untenable, through enemy action which I, personally, think unlikely, the House of Commons, the people's House, will continue to meet in the Capital, in London, at a time when the morale of the people is so important? Some of us who have to go on war service will attend here when we can but it would be a great encouragement to us if we could be given an assurance that the House will meet in the Capital of the Empire.

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. With complete confidence I can give that assurance so far as it affects His Majesty's Government. The only reason for taking the precautions so far is in case this particular building should become untenable and we were compelled to meet somewhere else. If we could not meet here we must obviously meet somewhere else. I can say that His Majesty's Government are determined that the seat

of Government will remain in London as long as it is absolutely possible.

Mr. Cluse: May I ask that if hon. Members are brought here the Government will take the opportunity of using their services in some way?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. The Government are fully aware how anxious all Members of the House are to do whatever they canto aid the common cause which we all have at heart. I do not think it is possible for me at the moment to say any more, but when the moment comes and the Government can say something more, I can assure the hon. Member that they will do so.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will be able to extend the military age to 70 for hon. Members of this House?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Four Minutes before Five o'Clock' till To-morrow at a Quarter before Three o'Clock.